Members of the Derby tax board held an illegal meeting Monday, but the board’s chairman apologized after being told the meeting was improper under state law.
On Monday, the tax board hosted a public hearing on Derby’s budget, followed by a regularly scheduled tax board meeting.
At one point, tax board chairman Jim Butler wanted elected officials to meet in private to discuss when to hold upcoming tax board meetings. The board has until the end of the month to adopt a budget.
Butler first suggested the tax board meet in a non-public executive session. However, state law says executive sessions can only be held for sensitive issues such as real estate deals, legal strategies connected to a lawsuits and when talking about a specific employee.
Tax board member Judy Szewczyk questioned the use of executive session as did Derby Democratic Registrar of Voters Louise Pitney, who was in the audience.
Butler then suggested the tax board meet in a caucus. The board then went into a small meeting room in the Aldermanic Chambers and shut the door behind them.
Caucuses are defined as meetings between members of the same political party. A caucus does not have to be open to the public. However, both Democrats and Republicans met behind closed doors Monday — which simply made the gathering an illegal meeting under state law.
Furthermore, the Valley Indy listened at the door and could hear the tax board members discussing what the mill rate increase in the proposed Derby budget will do to property tax bills. Members talked about reaction they were getting from the public.
The closed-door session was brief, perhaps 10 minutes.
When the tax board convened in public, Butler announced several new meeting dates for the tax board.
During public comment, Derby business owner Thomas Harbinson — who has experience on several boards and commissions in Shelton, his hometown — pointed out the tax board had just met illegally.
“I apologize. Caucus was the wrong term. It was just a matter of trying to set some dates,” Butler said.
“Certainly that is something that could be taken care of in public,” Harbinson said.
After the meeting, Butler told the Valley Indy the board was nervous about talking about their schedule in public due to a rash of burglaries in Derby.
Ansonia tax board members made a similar goof in May 2011, when board members split into two small groups to avoid public meeting laws to have follow-up conversations about the budget proposal.
An FOI complaint should be filed against this board for several reasons. First, it clearly was not a caucus.
Secondly, when “the Valley Indy listened at the door and could hear the tax board members discussing what the mill rate increase in the proposed Derby budget will do to property tax bills. Members talked about reaction they were getting from the public.” This is not even a reason to have an executive session. They held an illegal executive session.
And finally, the schedules for the meetings are PUBLIC record and the rational for not holding the discussion in public was ridiculous. When the members are deciding on a new schedule, they can call each other to find a mutually agreeable set of dates. This was totally illegal and should be filed as a violation of Freedom of Information Regulations.
I know none of those that serve on various Derby boards, and thus have no axe to grind. No FOI complaints would be filed from me – but it’s so obvious a violation that from my experience I had to point it out. I have attended two seminars over the years in Shelton, conducted by the State of CT FOI Commission, and the time spent is always helpful as a refresher or introduction to rules of conduct for government agencies. The Commission would make their presentation free of charge, and it would be helpful education for all who serve on all bodies in the City government.
Put it to bed they didn’t mean to do anything wrong. Once it was pointed out they were sorry for what happened and explained. Thomas Harbinson thank you for letting them know about the issue and I feel they wouldn’t let it happen again. I feel that at least the Tax Board is trying to move in the right direction and are discussing the concerns of the taxpayers.