NORWALK, Conn. – The two main parties involved in three recent highly publicized Norwalk Freedom of Information complaints have one thing in common – silence.
There have been no official replies from the Freedom of Information Commission regarding complaints filed against Board of Education member Shirley Mosby, who has been silent since her initial flurry of confused replies. FOIC Spokesman Thomas Hennick said the wheels are turning slowly, and said that, in his personal opinion, the materials Mosby is said to have collected are indeed FOI-able.
Any work done by a Board of Education member should be fair game for an FOI request, Hennick said while cautioning that it is his opinion only and the commission has yet to weigh in.
The Parent Teacher Organization Council (PTOC), the Republican Town Committee and NancyOnNorwalk filed complaints against Mosby after requests for evidence Mosby is said to have collected to support her claim of racially based “disparate treatment” on the Board were ignored or rejected.
The complaints are “in hand, they’ll be docketed,” Hennick said last week. He said the commission is now working on March complaints, so it might take several weeks before there is any action.
“It’s a month or so until they’re formally reviewed and documented, and then we’ll go from there,” he said.
RTC Chairman Pete Torrano said he hasn’t heard from Mosby since her written reply referring to the July 1 BoE meeting where her complaint became public – a confusing reply since the request had nothing to do with that meeting.
“I did call FOIC and was told I would receive notice within a week to 10 days,” Torrano said in a Tuesday email. “That was about four days ago. The woman I spoke with did not give me details but said they were moving forward with it.”
PTOC President Michael Byrne said he hasn’t heard from Mosby since her initial response claiming that the request was invalid as she hadn’t provided evidence in July. He sent her an email apologizing for saying he hadn’t gotten a reply when there had been one in the mail, he said. He has not gotten a reply to the email.
“I suppose we should not be very surprised that she has continued her silence on this issue, although I remain hopeful that we may yet reach a resolution,” Byrne said in an email. “I am confident that, should this case reach the commission, they will find in our favor. … Defying the FOI Commission would be a breach of the public trust and an affront to the very nature of our democracy. It is time we hold our elected officials to a higher standard in this city.”
A person close to Mosby said she had not replied to the NoN request because it was sent by email and she had missed it. NoN put it all on paper and handed a package to BoE Communications Director Brenda Williams on April 24 for delivery to Mosby. As of Monday, Mosby had not replied.
Some NoN commenters dispute the validity of the requests:
“Public documents? If Ms Mosby has notes she made at the time when she felt she was being treated differently, or discriminated against, how do those notes achieve the status of public documents?” Oldtimer wrote on April 24.
“Does everybody misunderstand FOI as it would apply to such a binder?” Don’t Panic wrote on April 23. “FOI permits you to request public records, which would include communications between board members. But the binder in question would not be a record created or maintained by the BOE, and because she didn’t produce it to the BOE, but to a lawyer and/or a private organization with intent to pursue a legal claim, I don’t think the ‘binder’ itself or the created assembly of public records (which theoretically could be considered privileged evidence in an attorney-client communication) constitutes a public record… Ms Mosby’s inclusion into any file intended to pursue legal action against the board would provide insight into her strategy to pursue her own rights and might be protected the same as the communications provided by the BOE when they sought legal advice from Corporate Counsel regarding Ms Mosby’s complaint.”
“One man’s opinion, not a ruling from the commission, but I wouldn’t agree with that,” Hennick said.
If Mosby has collected evidence to support her complaint those are records she has collected in her capacity as public official, Hennick opined.
The statute says that:
“All records and files of state and local public agencies must be disclosed unless a particular federal or state law makes them confidential. This includes any recorded data or information relating to public business prepared, owned, used, received, or retained by a public agency, whether it is handwritten, tape-recorded, printed, photostatted, photographed, computerized, or recorded by some other method. The act prohibits agencies from computerizing their records in a way that impairs public access to disclosable information. Public information subject to disclosure generally includes letters, memoranda, advisory opinions, recommendations, and reports used within agencies or sent to other agencies.”
Hennick said, “As a Board member she’s part of that public agency so I think that’s how I would make the case.”
Anything sent to the Board regarding this matter is sent directly to Mosby, Norwalk interim Superintendent of Schools James Connelly said.
He said, “I don’t know if she’s represented by an attorney, but she’s not represented by the Board attorney.”
Leave a Reply
You must Register or Login to post a comment.