Bill Butterly and Board of Finance admonished by Woodbury's town attorney for illegal meetings.

On Monday, a legal opinion was released to the town discussing illegal meetings being held by the Board of Finance, including First Selectman candidate Bill Butterly. 

This is very serious and we must understand why this matters. 

1. Under Freedom of Information laws, all business from boards and commissions must be conducted for public view in a meeting noticed in advance.  The purpose of this is to protect our right to watch what government is doing. 

2.  There are explicitly defined exceptions to these laws.  For example, a zoning commission may go into executive session to discuss the blueprints of a new police station.  This conversation would be exempt from open meeting laws because of the security part of it. 

3. When public officials act this way, the trust of the people is violated and everything that is done is called into question.  Transparency is a critical component of government. 

What happened? 

I submitted a request for personal emails from each Board of Finance members.  Two members complied very quickly.  The First Selectman's office received the responses and upon seeing them Jerry Stomski obtained the referenced legal opinion (which I have posted here). 

The emails I have received have the personal email address of each member and it is inappropriate to post the private email addresses of Board of Finance members without their consent. 

There are a number of unanswered questions relating to this and other matters.  I will post more at a future date. 

One thing I will say is Jerry Stomski had an obligation speak to counsel and get this opinion.  The spin merchants will attempt to make this about the election and it is about Bill Butterly's and the Board of Finance's actions alone. 

ADDED October 6th, 2013

As I suspected, the deflecting started.  To make sure I am 100% clear.  I filed an FOI request to each Board of Finance member.  Two of those members produced emails.  Those emails were delivered to the First Selectman's office.  Jerry saw them and saw the same problem I did: illegal behavior by the board.  How do I know this?  My substantial research from my zoning commission days. 

He had an obligation to the town to obtain a legal opinion on this.  Had he not, the same people complaining he did would complain he did not get the opinion.  A damned if he does, damned if he does not moment.  Having a letter from the town attorney saying this behavior is not okay and handing it to Butterly shows this is real issue and not a campaign one.  I know that Jerry arranged at least one meeting to teach board and commission members how Freedom of Information laws work.  I wonder if any Board of Finance members ever attended. 

Since Putney brought up the transparency issue, then he better demand that Butterly release the audio tape from the last board of finance meeting. 

Here is the text of Butterly's response to my request to review the audio:

"Please advise Mr Murphy that we have received his altered request to look at emails, and that we are working feverishly to comply with this request. However, as the original BOF member to have sat on the Ag- Science Committtee, the BOF member who sat in on the teacher's negotiation sessions and the member who assumed the role as chairman in 2013, it will probably take me longer than the rest of the board to compile the broad brush information that he is seeking. I have discussed this matter via several telephone conversations with FOIC's Mr Tom Hennick who said that it would not be unusual to take weeks, or even months to search through and produce such information. The Town Counsel, in a telephone conversation on Thursday, October 5, concurred.

Mr Hennick also stated that Linda Leigh's taping was not done on a town owned recording device, and serves as her note taking. As such, it falls under the Preliminary Drafts and Notes  section of the Ct Gen, Statues 1-210 and does not have to be released."

Note that Butterly states there is not a requirement to release the audio and he is not going to.  Since there is no legitimate reason to withhold, why not release it?  Is there something that he is hiding?  That answer reminded me of how Martin Overton behaved while I was on zoning. 

Anyone who is truly committed to transparency would not withhold something like this.  Just because you do not have to release something, does not mean you should not.  Also note that two members of the Board of Finance responded, yet Butterly mentioned it may take months.  How come the others' were able to respond so quickly? 

Attorney Jessel did not specify which emails crossed the line.  That is something for the Freedom of Information Commission will do.