FOI Commission director Russell Blair briefs Middletown council on open-meeting rules

Russell Blair, director of education and communications for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, told the Middletown Common Council at a special March 20 training that the FOI law “really is about government transparency” and that it governs two main areas: access to public meetings and access to public records.

Blair, who led the hourlong presentation and a lengthy question-and-answer session, said the statute’s practical trigger is quorum. “There’s kind of three things that if all three of these things are happening, then it is a meeting,” he said, describing a meeting as a convening or assembly of a quorum discussing matters within the public agency’s supervision, control or jurisdiction.

The presentation clarified several recurring points for council members: the state FOI law does not create a guaranteed right to speak during a public meeting (local bodies may set public-comment rules, including asking for name and address), emails and texts about council business on personal devices are public records if they relate to official business, and caucuses of members of the same political party are permitted but any written notes or emails from those caucuses can become public records.

Blair emphasized procedural differences among meeting types. Regular meetings should be scheduled annually; special meetings require notice and an agenda (and cannot add new items beyond those advertised), and emergency meetings may be convened without the usual notice when immediacy is required. He also listed deadlines: regular meeting minutes must be filed within seven calendar days, special-meeting minutes within seven business days, emergency-meeting minutes within 72 hours, and recordings of fully virtual regular meetings must be posted within seven days and kept at least 45 days.

On executive sessions, Blair summarized the five permitted topics under state law—personnel matters concerning a specific person, pending litigation, security matters, property negotiations, and discussion of records otherwise exempt from disclosure—and reminded members that votes cannot be taken in executive session and that agendas should describe the subject sufficiently for the public to know the topic.

Council members raised procedural and enforcement concerns. One member recounted a prior FOI complaint that took months to reach a hearing and said, “The democratic side was allowed to hire or was given a lawyer paid for by the city. We were not.” Blair responded that the commission is small, handles complaints for the whole state and that case processing can take time: “Part of that is, you know, we’re a very small agency… Last year, we got an excess of 750 complaints.” He invited members to share correspondence and to follow up with him directly.

Blair also explained enforcement mechanics: municipal requests must be acknowledged within four business days; failure to acknowledge is treated as a denial and can prompt a complaint to the FOIC. He described the commission’s contested-case process, remedies and the rarely used ability to issue subpoenas or impound evidence when necessary.

The session included practical tips for running meetings and handling records requests—documenting attendance and votes in minutes, posting adequate agendas so the public can decide whether to attend, and being cautious about deleting records that may be subject to retention laws. Blair encouraged dialogue between requesters and municipal staff to narrow scope and to make requests manageable.

The council closed the session with a voice vote to adjourn. A council member moved to adjourn, another seconded, and the Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m.

The FOIC offered to share its slide deck and to return for further training or to answer follow-up questions by email or phone.