What the election in Woodbury is really all about.

I attended the Board of Finance meeting tonight and realized what has really been going on in town. 

I filed a Freedom of Information request over emails among Board of Finance members emailing each other.  Upon receiving a response, I realized my suspicions were correct. 

It is an all too common mistake by appointed and elected officials to discuss matters outside the meeting.  Under the Freedom of Information laws, the people have a right to see discussions and votes on matters. 

The violations were confirmed by the Woodbury town attorney.  The matters are not criminal in my opinion.  Final conclusion would have to be determined by the Freedom of Information Commission in Hartford. 

What I saw tonight was the real story in Woodbury.  In my opinion, the law is lax with regards to how boards and commissions should conduct business.  There are minimal requirements.

I have seen two completely different mindsets from government officials over transparency. 

My personal belief is unless there is a good reason to hide something from the public, let them know.  Here is a link to the Connecticut Statutes over Freedom of Information laws. 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_014.htm

There are some explicit examples of where information should not be released to the public.  For example, a zoning commission reviewing the plans for a police station.  Or discussing something that is secret intellectual property to an applicant. 

The problem is there is a huge difference between what has to be public and what should be public.  The Woodbury Zoning Commission received a number of legal opinions in my time there.  It did not have to release them to the public (attorney/client communication), but zoning did each time.  This issue is not partisan.  This is a basic philosophical one. 

This "have to vs. should" mindset was on full display again tonight.  On the we should release information side was Jerry Stomski, Mike Cunningham, and from what I could see Deb Fuller.  On the other side was Bill Drakeley and Bill Butterly with the we do not have to so we will not.  In fairness, Charles Bartlett was not at the meeting and I have no idea what his position is.  I can say that he stated in 2 separate emails that the exchanges should be handled at a board of finance meeting. 

At one point in the meeting, Bill Butterly was reading the town attorney's letter on the email exchanges.  Bill Drakeley and Deb Fuller had a conversation while Butterly was reading.  I asked as a point of order to have Drakeley and Fuller repeat what they said.  Bill Drakeley and Bill Butterly stated they did not have to.  Deb Fuller repeated it. 

This attitude from Drakeley and Butterly is very consistent with what I saw with Martin Overton on Zoning.  People should be able to hear and see what is going on at public meetings with their public officials.  What is legal is at times different than what is right. 

I have realized more and more this is the problem in town. 

We have a right to know what is going on.  I want officials in office who will allow us and promote us to watch them to make sure they are doing the right thing.  Jerry Stomski has never been afraid of this.  He has never played this game of I do not have to tell you so I will not. 

I feel the same way about Barbara Perkinson.  I certainly feel this way about Tom Arras.  I do not know Kevin Barry very well, but I suspect he feels the same way. We have a choice for Board of Selectmen in November. 

This is the town of Woodbury.  It is not Murphbury, Stomskibury, Arrasbury, Perkinsonbury, Drakebury, Butterbury, or Overtonbury. 

When I filed my request for the emails, Mike Cunningham and Stan Love responded with some information pretty quickly.  Deb Fuller stated tonight that she had just about completed the request.  Then there was Bill Butterly, who went out of his way to let the board know that it was perfectly legal to take weeks or months to respond.  Is that what we want from our officials?  I did ask for a lot of information and it is reasonable to allow some time to respond.  But to go so far out of your way to act like that says a lot about Butterly.  Butterly stated this in a response to me previously.  My reaction to Butterly's comments was he was telling he will take as much time as he wants and I just have to like it.  This is the "I do not have to so I will not" attitude. 

I will say that I left the meeting at 10pm after repeated snipes by Bill Butterly at me during the discussion of my Freedom of Information request.  His unprofessional badgering of me under Privilege of the Floor and throughout the meeting showed his true colors. 

I have never had a cross word with Bill until tonight.  It is clear to me his attitude toward transparency is not what I voted for in 2011.  This town will take a substantial step back if he were elected to First Selectman.