Below is my unofficial transcript of a 22 minute portion of the 8-1-24 Easton Selectman Meeting where the Selectmen discuss the secret Freedom of Information Complaint filed by First Selectman Bindelglass against June Logie of Citizens for Responsible Government.
The definitive record of the meeting is the official recording that will be posted to the town website, do not rely upon these unofficial versions. We supply them as a public service. Please let us know if you see typos or inaccuracies and we will correct them. I spent many hours on it so I am confident it is essentially accurate. I added some words for clarity, they are in parenthesis ().
Anybody who knows a quick way to create a text transcript from a video that automatically strips out time signatures and strips out carriage returns and other formats please let me. There has got to be a less time consuming way to do this.
(Bindelglass:) Um, item number five, discussion of petition for relief from Vexatious FOIAs (Freedom of Information requests by citizens)
Um, Kristi wrote me a letter after receiving some correspondence and, uh, so I said I would put it on the agenda. So, one of the questions you asked was, or one of the statements you made was that the person for whom this filing was made was not listed on the filing or not clearly (identified). So, the answer to your question is, it’s June Logie.
Sogofsky: No, I, my question was (why) that that person wasn’t notified when it was it was filed.
Bindelglass: No, there’s no requirement that that be done.
Sogofsky: Um, okay.
Bindelglass: Well, so there are a number of issues here. Go ahead.
(Sogofsky:) you on, go ahead first, feel free. No, go ahead. No.
(Bindelglass:) So there is a statute on the books in the state of Connecticut for the protection of towns and the people of towns and the governments of towns that allows towns or organizations to seek relief from what is termed Vexatious Freedom of Information requests. The principle is that freedom of information requests can be used as a tool to disrupt and obstruct the workings of government.
That’s why it’s on the books.
We don’t write the statutes, although that’s actually an interesting question ’cause we’ll talk a little bit later about how the statute got written. Um, but we don’t write statutes. That statute exists as protection (for the people) whose funds are used to fund the people who work in town hall to get things done.
We’ve had a lot of discussions lately about obstructionism, um, and I’ve sat quietly, I believe in the interest of civility and not discussing this further. There are people who express concerns about what is done by governments in this town and elsewhere with an eye towards making things better.
There are also people who start with the premise that they need to find something wrong. There’s a difference between the two, which is readily apparent. People in the first group who are trying to make government better are actually gratified to find out that things are okay and are helpful when they find out that things are not and are willing to work with the town to try and help those things.
The second group, and this has been a conversation ever since (Selectman) Nick (D’Addario) kind of called people out a little bit. The second group, when they find out that things are right, become increasingly in a particular case, agitated, um, and sometimes even abusive.
And we’ve sat at this table and heard the unprecedented actions of people who work for the people of this town coming to Selectmen meetings to defend themselves from accusations that they think are completely unreasonable and false.
And they’ve come to defend each other. For that, I took this action on my own because part of my job is to manage town hall. The other Selectmen, for the most part, don’t interact with the people who work for this town.
There’s a reason why my desk is there and the (other) Selectmen don’t necessarily work within Town hall. I took this action; this law exists for a reason. I took it because I think that this individual was harming this town and was disrupting and to use the word of the day, obstructing the work of government in this town. Um, as you’ll see from my complaint, I understand that it’s a high bar.
People believe that Freedom of Information is critical, and so do I and we fulfill all requests. But we also are aware of the fact that these requests can bog downtown hall and can be used specifically for that purpose.
We’ve also been extremely lenient in allowing people into town hall to have access to material in town hall to have access to workers in town hall to the point where it becomes disruptive.
As you’ll see from my complaint, I have an issue when people go through files,
find the information they need, and then FOIA anyway. I have a problem when people FOIA information, which yes, like somebody’s salary is open to the public.
It is foiable, but I believe that it is being used and being FOIA’d for purposes that are not fitting the spirit of the Freedom of Information act, even if they fit the letter.
So I stand behind what I did. We spent a lot of time in town trying to figure out how to be more civil and I’ve held off on my discussions about obstructionism, which have been so steadfastly denied by so many.
But I stand by what I did and I am open to (further) comment.
(Sogofsky:) Um, just this general statement first about Freedom of Information.
It doesn’t matter. You don’t have to say (state) purposes (for) why you’re searching for something. You are open to able to search for any information that doesn’t need to have a reason.
Um, what people are searching it for is irrelevant. I think my main issue is that yes, I understand you are in Town Hall, and I understand it’s your responsibility to manage town hall and you are here.
But with all the talk of transparency, nobody knew about this. Nobody knew that this was such a problem and such an issue until nine months after the fact. When the decision came out.
(Bindelglass:) You, you missed the fact that the people who work in town hall came and sat next to you to explain exactly what this issue was, that they were being personally attacked.
(Sogofsky:) Tell me that
(Bindelglass:) by this Vexatious FOIA person
(Sogofsky:) That doesn’t them coming to you. No, I didn’t miss that. Okay.
I sat right here, and I saw them and I heard them and I understand their complaints.
My, I’m talking about your actions, okay? And use of the word transparency over
and over and over again.
(Bindelglass:) Mm-Hmm.
(Sogofsky:) And you do this on November the, the day after you got reelected. One of your first priorities of your new administration is to seek to file a complaint against someone seeking information in town. And nobody knows about it for nine months. That is not transparent in any way, shape or form.
Whatever the motivations were, whatever it is you were trying to protect, that is
And that is one of my,
(Bindelglass:) It’s public, it’s public knowledge.
(Sogofsky:) Oh, so I should FOIA the Freedom of Information Commission. Sure.
(Bindelglass:) It’s been done. (Sogofsky:) One bad action does not justify another.
(Bindelglass:) Okay.
(Sogofsky:) And the other thing is civility. You have attacked this person in public meetings before.
(Bindelglass:) I have pointed out errors in what she said.
(Sogofsky:) No, I sat in that seat. Bob Lesser was here. You two got into a yelling match until I stopped it.
(Bindelglass:) Yes. Because she refused to acknowledge that she herself had written an ordinance with me that I invited her to write with me.
(Sogofsky:) I don’t to
(Bindelglass:) I mean, if you wanna bring it up, bring it up. If you don’t wanna bring it up, don’t bring it up.
(Sogofsky:) I don’t wanna think this about one person. I wanna make this
about transparency and civility and the repeated use of those words by this administration and then doing something like this.
And then you get the information back and your complaint acknowledges there’s this high bar that needs to be met, this high threshold. And then you failed to meet that, and you failed to meet another requirement of the filing of this, which makes it look like a bunch of complaints thrown into a letter that was not clearly put together.
And I’m sorry, that is an embarrassment to the town of Easton in front of the Freedom of Information Commission, in the way this was filed. If you truly wanted to do this, it should have been done right? And it wasn’t.
(Bindelglass:) So the fact that there isn’t enough information to have them reach a decision is the nature of the complaint. That’s set fault.
(Sogofsky:) But the accusations are that this is, this is bringing Town Hall to a halt.
And I understand the employees have jobs to do and I understand that repeated requests and interruptions and everything else gets in the way of that. But it is also a responsibility to provide information. And if we are providing information and there are holes in it and it leads to more requests, that’s the nature of the beast.
Unfortunately, if everything is up to par, everything is in order, everything is there,
then presumably the complaint would go away, or the request would go away. But when everything isn’t up to par and everything isn’t in order and there are documents or permits or whatever missing and there’s holes in the story, you can only expect more come requests to follow.
Which leads to why aren’t things in order, which is actually
what the Freedom of Information Act really exists for, is to uncover and discover things that aren’t necessarily up to par.
(Bindelglass:) So if you’re talking about the completeness of records yes, we have records in this town that are dozens of years old. We have records that we allow people to access, which for whatever reason become incomplete.
And that does lead to further questions. I think that you are extremely aware of the fact that that’s not the entirety of the story that’s happening.
(Sogofsky:) I think it’s part of the story.
(Bindelglass:) Okay. But you also know, you also know you understand what the word vexatious means.
(Sogofsky:) I understand what it means.
(Bindelglass:) And you know, as do the people who work here who’ve come here to defend themselves, that that’s not the whole story. And that there’s other things at work here. Those things disrupt this town. They hurt the taxpayers of this town.
They limit the ability of people in this town as they’ve sat here and told you to do their jobs properly.
And this law, the Vexacious request law exists to deal with that. If it weren’t, if, if, if Freedom of Information were such an open process and so sacrosanct that there were no restrictions to be placed on it, this law wouldn’t exist.
But it does because somebody feels that it needs to be. Now here’s an interesting thing. I haven’t fully been able to track down the origin of this provision,
but from what I can tell, the origin of this position started in this district with Adam Dunsky sponsoring the legislation and his first Selectmen.
Now one can only wonder what would’ve motivated Adam to go to the state and write a state law to deal with vexatious FOIA requests. I don’t know the answer to that.
(Sogofsky:) So now that we’ve gotten the decision back that this is not a vexatious request or what happens,
(Bindelglass:) We’ll continue as we have all along to fulfill (FOIA requests?)
(Selectman D’Addario:) Let’s be clear, A FOIA request has never been (denied?) I want to get that out. Correct?
(Sogofsky:) Correct. I understand.
(D’Addario) Just wanna be, just wanna (get) that out for the record.
(Bindelglass:) And the only people that can allow us to deny a FOIA request are the State Commission.
(D’Addario:) And can I ask one other question? Maybe just (give?) break between the two of you guys talking. Uh, it could be good for the temperature. Um, if the state had ruled in favor, it would not have denied information, which just limited the ability of one person requesting that information. But that same person could literally hand it to another person and get that information the from another person.
(Bindelglass:) That is correct.
(D’Addario:) Okay. So it’s not preventing the (flow) of information, it’s about the request (for it.) Yes. Okay. Just wanna be clear about that.
(Sogofsky:) It’s about one particular individual.
(Bindelglass:) Well, you can only file for one requester at a time. That is correct.
(Sogofsky:) So back to my question is now that this, I mean, they didn’t deny it, they didn’t even consider it.
(Bindelglass:) That’s how the process works.
(Sogofsky:) Right. But it didn’t get to the Commission, the Director, it didn’t, the Commission, I’m sorry, the Executive Director has determined it does not warrant a
hearing because it fails to detail conduct that demonstrates vexatious history of requests. Nothing changes. But what about the attitude in town hall?
(Bindelglass:) It has no effect directly on the attitude in town hall. I’m not sure what you’re asking.
(Sogofsky:) Well, you, you’re talking about, you haven’t answered that says you’re
Ha you’re talking about people in town feeling a certain way and feeling they are not being able to do their jobs, and that morale is low.
And all of these things that played into the complaint that have now not been upheld, so to speak, what, or you as the person sitting in town hall going to do
so that the morale and the attitude of town employees doesn’t continue to be adversarial.
(Bindelglass:) So the recommendation, one of the recommendations of the Committees (Easton Committee on Civility) was to make visits to town employees by appointment only. I have mixed feelings about that, and I haven’t worked to enforce that yet. Is it’s true in most town halls and you can,
(D’Addario referring to the findings of the Easton Committee on Civility) we said that it would be by each department. ’cause certainly there’s certain departments that you shouldn’t have to make an appointment to pay your dog tax.
(Sogofsky:) Right? Right. I think it, I think it was more of a , I think limited
(D’Addario:) Or office hours were the other idea, um, I mean one of the things that we discussed on that task force was particularly government employees here in town hall who felt that at times they’ve been targeted or that their time has been monopolized by, um, that their time had been monopolized by certain people,
you know, three, four hours in one day in one department dealing with FOIA requests. I think the way we left it, we left it intentionally vague for HR to, to sort of handle and, and you as manager of town to handle.
–>
And I think that one of the thoughts was, you know, if all FOIA requests should be met, right? No end if or buts about that. You have to, but but at the same time, you know, if someone needs to get their job done, they might say,
I’ll finish getting this information to you by, you know, a reasonable amount of time. Right. So, but that again, we didn’t make any specific recommendations.
We made general recommendations. ’cause it’s not the role of a task force to tell you how to man or department heads how to manage their departments. So
(Sogofsky:) I think limiting access to town hall is a slippery slope that I don’t think we should go down. I mean, it’s a public building.
(D’Addario:) Yeah, no, it, that was not to be clear, that was not the recommendation. Recommendation was that maybe having certain office hours defined times, defined times.
(Bindelglass:) But, but that’s a question we can discuss. Yeah. I wouldn’t make that decision unilaterally. In terms of your questions for how do these people deal
with this going forward?
Um, we do the best we can when we manage people. Sometimes what they really wanna know is that you hear them and that you have their backs. And sometimes that’s the best you can do. That’s the way management of people is sometimes be nice if you could give ’em everything they wanted, but you can’t.
–>
So I, the answer is they know that we will do what we can to allow them to do their jobs to the people of this town, to the best of their ability.
(Sogofsky:) I also think attitude probably starts at The top.
(Bindelglass:) I think you’re absolutely right about that
(D’Addario:) I mean, my, my only thing would be that you are here every single day, you’re managing the tab on a daily basis and you are interacting, dealing with employees. And you see how this has, uh, interfered with the normal flow of like, of the business of town hall.
And I mean, you do have to have your town employee’s backs. Um, and balance that with look there, everyone deserves the answers to their questions and no information would’ve been, uh, kept in this situation.
But there I think is clearly, it’s clearly known in town there is, uh, an issue with this particular individual overwhelming town, the town departments with requests. Um, so I mean, I back you on what you,
(Bindelglass:) in terms of attitude, you know, again,
I pointed out the history of the statute because the attitude towards vexatious FOIA requests obviously started before I was in this position. Some something motivated my predecessor and (State representative) Assembly person to craft the statute.
And I think, you know, that the attitude towards certain people predates me by a substantial period of time. If we’re talking about
(Sogofsky:) It doesn’t need to be perpetuated. No, no. We, and we’re sitting here at a board of Selectmen meeting discussing one particular person who has been labeled and yes are there issues, are there ways that things to be done better?
Sure. But we’re sitting here at a board of selectmen meeting talking about one individual. And if there was such a concern about letting town employees know that you got their back, why wasn’t this shared?
(Bindelglass:) And you wanted know? So let me turn that around. We’re talking about one, there’s no reason we had to have this conversation about any single individual at all, except that you wanted to know why this was done without telling everybody all of the details about why this was done. This conversation never even had to happen.
If you find the conversation troublesome that we’re sitting in a board of selectmen and meeting discussing one individual, that’s why these things were submitted as they were.
(Sogofsky:) Okay, but why weren’t they made, why when it was submitted, didn’t you let people know, Hey, I’m taking steps to resolve this instead of letting it be silent for nine months
(Bindelglass:) Because I didn’t know how this was gonna turn out. This could have been a nothing. It turns out to be a nothing.
(Sogofsky:) I don’t think it’s a nothing. And to be clear, I did not request to have it put on the agenda. No,
(Bindelglass:) You request, you wrote me an email. I thought that this was the best way to have a conversation.
(D’Addario:) I mean, based on my reading, the email seemed like it was best that it was aired out and public. My opinion, and I mean, I, in terms of changing the, uh,
(Sogofsky:) Oh, one of the, my email never specifically addressed one individual addressed actions and everything else. So, the fact that we’re sitting here talking about the individual is based on that. My questions were more vaguely
(D’Addario:) Ed, clearly in the public about the discussion and the mm-Hmm. Individual has posted all online. So, I see Yeah In several different forums Mm-Hmm. With links. Mm-Hmm. And otherwise, so, you know I don’t think it’s a big secret here.
And I also think that in terms of changing attitude in town hall, the, the, uh, morale
of the town employees, I think, you know, this is a lever that you had, didn’t work. There’s a lever that you had to show them that you’re taking steps. There’s certainly levers by the individual and other people that are requesting that could be more respectful of people’s time and respectful about coming to meetings using a public forum to make baseless accusations at times against those people that work in town hall. So it’s a two-way street to it
(Sogofsky:) Absolutely is.
(D”Addario:) I agree because I mean, some of this stuff that’s said in emails to us or here in public comment, every, anyone can say whatever they want in public comment, right?
There’s no, there’s no bad end. Some of it is to an individual working in town in a certain department, pretty aggressive and pretty personal and accusations are made that they’re breaking the law. Well, every FOIA request has been answered.
So prove it You don’t have to prove it to come up here and sit here. You just come up and make accusations against people. And then now it’s on a Forum where many people in a small town get to hear it about people that are working hard here every single day in town. So it is a two way street, my opinion.
(Bindelglass:) Any further discussion? Okay.
Item number six.
