6 April—This letter is posted, with Val Caron’s permission, as it appeared in the 2 April Sunday Republican. Val’s reference to an article in the RA is self-explanatory.

Definition of the Freedom of Information Act: Simply put, it is the right of the public to request access to records from government agencies and attend any meeting of a public agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government.

Connecticut’s FOI Commission is a group of nine attorneys assigned to the commission by the state legislature and governor to investigate or oversee hearings concerning complaints brought on by residents.

The Republican-American’s article of March 19 about FOI complaints included our complaint concerning limited access at a meeting of the Borough Board of Litchfield. It was well attended as the major agenda item concerned the removal of yellow ribbons that were displayed on Litchfield’s Green in support of our active military members stationed round the world.

As the article stated, the meeting room quickly overflowed with attendees. At this point, Gayle C. Carr, the acting warden, refused to move the meeting to a larger venue, and had the outer door opened so the overflow crowd could stand outside in 35-degree weather. Many in attendance stated they could not see or hear various speakers very well. At this point, many either spoke and went outside so others could enter the meeting room, or left altogether because of the cold. By the time public-comment period was ended, there was enough room. The outside door had been opened for almost an hour. Attendees could only make our three-minute statements. This included a couple of elderly veterans who had a lot to say about the meaning of honoring our actively serving military members. The way this meeting was wrongfully handled was why we filed our complaint with the FOI Commission.

We were allowed a hearing in hopes of making change. The original hearing consisted of a lead attorney for the FOI Commission along with the Borough Board’s attorney and several board members, two of whom were also attorneys. We had a few witnesses, and we decided not to hire our own attorney to give us advice. As attorneys are very pricey, we decided the money we would have spent on our own attorney should be spent on things to honor our wonderful veterans. When we wanted to question the board’s attorney, we were told we would be able to question him later in the hearing. This never happened, and the hearing was ended.

We were brought back for a hearing with the full commission. The board only sent their attorney. The final result of this hearing was an agreement by all commission members that our case did not have enough evidence; they dismissed the case. We entered a rebuttal, but that was denied.

It was an eye-opening experience on the power of attorneys when they join forces. Most of the original complaints that were heard at our original hearing date were dismissed. In our experience, the one positive was a training session for the board members on the importance of FOI requirements and their duty to follow these requirements. However, the board tried to make the training period a closed session so no one from the public could participate. To his credit, the trainer [Tom Hennick, Public Education Officer, now semi-retired and sorely missed] talked the Acting Warden Carr into letting a few of us participate.

Yes, you can file complaints to the FOI Commission if you feel an injustice has been done when requesting information or feel a public meeting has not been conducted properly. Unfortunately for the residents of the Borough of Litchfield, the Borough Board, over the course of a year, has spent over $12,000 of taxpayer dollars to fight a couple of citizens because board members want to keep a tight grip on their control of the Litchfield Green.

Hopefully, this story will allow those who wish to file FOI complaints to do their due diligence and hire an attorney if possible.

Valmore Caron

Bantam

I was able to listen in on the FOIC hearing Val refers to, but I couldn’t connect to it in order to be heard. I couldn’t have been a witness in any event, as I hadn’t attended the Borough of Litchfield Board of Warden and Burgesses (BOLBOWAB) meeting in question.

But I was shocked that the FOIC Executive Director and General Counsel, who conducted the hearing, allowed the BOLBOWAB defense lawyer greater leeway than the pro se complainants and reneged on her word to allow them to question the BOLBOWAB hired gun, with whom FOIC must have been acquainted. Not that it would have made any difference to the facts, as he couldn’t have provided any direct evidence.

FOIC commissioners, not hearing officers, decide on the cases. Of the six sitting commissioners, all of whose terms expire 30 June 2023, five just happen to be attorneys; there are currently three vacancies. The commissioners rely on the hearing officers’ reports; all the hearing officers are lawyers.

And that’s the point of Val Caron’s letter. While FOIC hearings are not supposed to be as formal and structured as judicial proceedings, the predominance of lawyers (generally representing public bodies and often familiar with hearing officers) tends to work in their favor, if only by intimidating—intentionally or otherwise—non-lawyer complainants unfamiliar with the process.

The obvious solution, of course, is for the Freedom of Information Commission to provide advocates for complainants, most of whom haven’t the resources to retain counsel. But, in the real world, it’s just as obvious that that will never happen.

Even now the FOIC is straining and stretching resources in order to do its necessary and commendable job because the state administration and legislature, despite their perfunctory insistence that transparency is where it’s at, clearly prefer opacity. So getting an appropriation to take on a cadre of public advocates just isn’t in the cards . . .