Norwalk City Council gets FOI training on meetings, records and executive sessions

Norwalk City Council members held a special meeting June 23 for a Freedom of Information training led by Russell Blair of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, who reviewed what counts as a public meeting, how records requests work, and when executive sessions are permissible.

Blair told the council that “the law is really all about transparency,” and walked through the FOI framework that covers both access to public meetings and access to public records. He said the commission enforces the law by investigating complaints and, when necessary, ordering remedies that can include mandatory training and fines. “We can also issue fines of up to $5,000,” he said, identifying fines as the commission’s strongest enforcement tool.

The presentation covered meeting definitions and quorum rules, stressing that communications or deliberations involving a quorum about city business should occur at a public meeting rather than by email or text. Blair advised caution around caucuses and charter-specific questions about whether nonmembers (for example, the mayor) may participate in a caucus without turning it into a public meeting.

On minutes and records, Blair emphasized timeliness: draft minutes must be made available within seven days, and minutes are the permanent record. He reminded members that FOI’s records definition is broad and that the content — not which device or account was used — determines whether a message is a public record. “Even if you use a personal device, if you are texting members of the city council about city council business…people can ask for copies of those text messages,” he said.

Blair clarified that FOI compels the production of existing public records but does not require officials to answer general questions or create new records on demand. He advised acknowledging records requests within four business days to avoid a constructive denial and to seek clarifications or narrower search parameters when requests are large or complex.

The training addressed executive sessions and their limits: permissible topics include personnel matters, pending litigation, security concerns, and certain pre-contract negotiations; councils must state the reason for executive session on the agenda and use a two-thirds vote to enter it. Blair underscored that no binding votes should occur in executive session and that the agenda should describe the topic sufficiently to fairly apprise the public.

Blair also described a petition process for dealing with “vexatious” requesters. Municipalities may petition the FOI Commission for relief when a requester’s pattern of requests and conduct amounts to harassment; if granted, the commission may order that the municipality need not respond to that person’s FOI requests for up to one year.

Council members asked practical questions about site visits, hybrid- and remote-meeting procedures, records retention timelines, and individual councillors’ responsibilities for emails and texts. Blair recommended clear internal policies, use of a city email when possible to streamline searches, and maintaining communication with requesters about timelines and scope.

The council received the training and thanked Blair; no motions, votes, or formal council actions were recorded at the special meeting. Blair encouraged councilors to contact the FOI Commission with follow-up questions and noted that the commission posts final decisions on its website.