More than a dozen government officials met Jan. 28 at Ansonia City Hall to talk for nearly 90 minutes about what the city should do with two publicly-owned properties downtown.
After discussing a number of options, they directed the city’s new grant writer to pursue funding for a feasibility study that would recommend a “highest and best” use for the buildings.
If you didn’t hear about the meeting beforehand, it’s because no one did — except, apparently, for the officials who took part.
The Valley Indy happened to learn of the gathering because a reporter was in City Hall Jan. 28 to cover a budget discussion of the Board of Aldermen’s finance committee.
There, First Ward Alderman Charles Stowe mentioned he had to leave to attend a meeting across the hall discussing the fate of the Ansonia Technology Park building at 497 E. Main St. and the Palmer Building at 153 Main St., two old industrial buildings currently owned by Ansonia.
Notice of the meeting was never posted on the city’s website or in the town clerk’s office — where members of the public can go to see how the government they pay for with tax dollars is doing its job, and where and when officials are getting together to discuss matters of public concern.
The man who convened the meeting — Vinnie Scarlata, the chairman of the city’s Economic Development Commission — called it a “brainstorming session.”
The following people were among those taking part:
- Scarlata;
- Sheila O’Malley, who was hired in December as the city’s new grant writer
- Rick Dunne, executive director at the Valley Council of Governments
- Peter Kelly, the city’s director of economic development
- Bart Flaherty, the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission and a member of the Economic Development Commission
- State Rep. Linda Gentile
- Charles Stowe, First Ward Alderman
- Carol Merlone, the city’s schools superintendent
- Terri Goldson, the principal of Mead School and a member of the Economic Development Commission
- Kathie Gabrielson, the school district’s director of special services
A handful of Republican members of the Board of Aldermen — Lorie Vaccaro, David Blackwell, and Matthew Edo — sat in the audience and occasionally chimed in.
Scarlata told the Valley Indy immediately before the meeting began that the discussion about to take place — by a group of public officials, in a public meeting room, in a public building — was “not for publishing,” but didn’t object when a reporter remained in the room for the session, recorded audio of most of it, and took notes.
But given the subject matter — what the city can do about two massive downtown properties — and the fact that new Mayor David Cassetti was elected last November after promising more transparency in City Hall, why not publicize it ahead of time to seek input about how to redevelop the properties from residents?
Hours after the meeting concluded, Scarlata sent the Valley Indy an email saying he was “hesitant” to publicize the pow-wow.
“I don’t want to get people’s hopes up,” his e‑mail said.
“I wanted it to be more of a discussion group of key people to vet the direction of the ATP/Palmer buildings,” Scarlata wrote. “Strictly open discussion as you saw.”
Is This Legal?
The state’s Freedom of Information Act contains a number of provisions about how public meetings are conducted — including that meetings of public agencies have to be announced on the web or in the town clerk’s office at least 24 hours prior to occurring in the vast majority of cases.
But no such “public agency” met Tuesday. The meeting was convened by Scarlata, the Economic Development Commission chairman, but only three of its members were in attendance — two short of the nine-member commission’s quorum, which would have made the meeting illegal.
The city’s lawyer said Tuesday (Feb. 4) that the meeting was kosher because the officials gathered were not able to actually do anything — including telling O’Malley, the city’s grant writer, what grants to look for.
“They really had no power to do that,” John Marini, the city’s corporation counsel, said.
But he said that issue was moot because Mayor Cassetti on Tuesday (Feb. 4) had himself directed O’Malley to look for the funding.
Marini characterized the meeting as “the city doing its homework” on the issue of how to redevelop the two properties.
“There’s times every day where we have discussions with people at City Hall that the public is not privy to,” he said. “This kind of falls under the scope of that: basically public officials talking to other people, not in the context of an official meeting.”
He said the city wasn’t trying to hide information from the public. “Otherwise (the meeting) wouldn’t have been in a public room.”
Public information experts said the meeting at the least dances on the edge of the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
What’s to prevent a dozen people on the public payroll in Ansonia to routinely meet without the public’s knowledge in order to influence the mayor?
James Smith, a retired newspaper editor and president of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information took a dimmer view than Marini.
He said such unofficial meetings are anything but transparent.
“If it’s not against the letter of the law, it’s certainly against the spirit of the law,” Smith said. “It’s public policy they’re talking about — public money, public properties, public planning.”
Smith drew a distinction between “chance meetings” specifically exempted from the FOI Act and other gatherings.
“Let’s say you’re at a cocktail party and you’re the chairman of the zoning commission and you run into the chairman of the planning commission,” he said. “You can’t legislate about that. But to have a meeting of several different officials from different commissions and agencies, you really can’t do that … it’s just way too informal.”
He also wondered what other discussions officials have convened without the public’s knowledge.
“It happens all too often,” Smith said. “At least they didn’t kick you out.”
Ansonia officials, under the prior administration, also tried to skirt the state’s Freedom of Information Act in 2011. After a tax board meeting, public officials split into small groups to continue talking about the public’s business. By splitting into smaller groups, they thought they wouldn’t have a quorum. The former mayor apologized a short time later.
Back To The Discussion
The fate of the buildings has been in limbo since late 2012, when city officials announced a New Jersey-based company who contracted to buy the properties in 2008 for $1.5 million had walked away from the deal.
The city then put the properties out to bid several times, but didn’t receive a single offer.
Scarlata began Tuesday’s meeting by summarizing past efforts at redeveloping the properties.
He brought up an idea he suggested in 2012 to use the buildings as the site of a community college.
Scarlata said he put the issue on the back burner during the run-up to last November’s elections, but with a new mayor, the city should form a plan for the properties sooner rather than later.
“Now, with a new administration, we need to decide what direction we want to take the buildings,” he told those gathered Tuesday. “Do we continue on and keep looking, pursue the school scenario, or do we want to give this up and sell the property off and walk away?”
“I think I have enough smart minds in the room to figure this out,” he said.
Officials then suggested a number of possibilities — from using the buildings as a location for a regional special education facility, to trying to lure a nearby college or university into opening a “satellite” campus in Ansonia, to letting a commercial real estate broker market them to potential developers.
After about 90 minutes, O’Malley said she could work on acquiring a grant to pay for a feasibility study of what type of development would be best for the properties.
Earlier in the meeting, O’Malley said Mayor Cassetti had a scheduling conflict and couldn’t attend the get-together, but wanted her to tell to the group “he wants to ensure that the taxpayers are in no way negatively affected by any of our ideas that we put on the table.”
Several officials gathered said getting a grant to pay for a study would satisfy that requirement.
“What do we think? Should we just let Sheila loose with the feasibility study and we’ll see what we come up with there?” Scarlata said at the end of the talk.
“I think that’s definitely the first step,” Rep. Gentile said.
“Awesome,” Scarlata said. “We have movement.”
Scarlata said in an email that if O’Malley is successful in getting funding for a study, he’ll ask the mayor if he can form a steering committee of Economic Development Commission members to shepherd the idea forward.
