Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Freedom Of Information topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney walks Killingly council through FOI obligations, executive session, records and communications risks
Summary
Ken Slater provided a detailed review of Freedom of Information rules for local boards, covering open-meeting requirements, executive-session limits, minutes and vote-record timelines, and the FOI risks posed by texts and personal emails used for town business.
At a Killingly Town Council meeting, municipal attorney Ken Slater led a training-style briefing on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and good governance practices for local boards.
Slater told council members that, under Connecticut law, the public has a right to observe most governmental meetings and the statutes provide narrow exceptions for executive sessions — for matters such as pending litigation, personnel issues, public security and certain privileged documents. He cautioned that agencies must publicly notice regular meeting schedules and that special meetings are limited to posted agenda items.
On recordkeeping, Slater said draft minutes must be produced promptly and delivered to the town clerk; the statutory expectation is that minutes documenting start time, attendees, vote outcomes and votes themselves be available within about seven days, while evidence of votes may be expected in a shorter window (24–48 hours in practice). He described FOI enforcement procedures, noting that hearing officers prepare proposed decisions for the Freedom of Information Commission, which can modify decisions, require training, or impose penalties.
Slater strongly warned council members that email and text-message threads can create an un-noticed meeting if a quorum discusses substantive business, and such communications are subject to FOI disclosure. He recounted a case where text messages were produced in an FOI review and advised the council to prefer government-issued accounts for town business to limit forensic exposure.
The attorney also explained executive-session procedure: the meeting must identify the subject for the session; those invited can be noted in the minutes; votes on executive-session topics must occur in open session, and minutes should reflect the time the body entered and left executive session. Slater emphasized that personnel subjects raised in open session may create FOI complaints unless proper notice and procedure are followed.
Council members asked practical questions about caucuses, whether members absent from a given meeting may later vote to approve minutes, and how to start a text-change amendment for zoning. Slater said forms are available through the planning office, fees generally cover statutory publication costs, and staff can assist applicants with drafting proposals.
The meeting closed after questions and a motion to adjourn; no FOI enforcement action was taken at the session.
