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.
As an avid reader and supporter of the Valley Independent Sentinel and the OJP, it pains me greatly to write this letter but both as a participant in the gathering covered in your story “Ansonia Holds Invite-Only Meeting On Public Matter” (VIS – Feb 4, 2014) and as a member of the Valley community I am appalled by the VIS’s reportage of this matter. The lede and headline of the story represents neither the spirit of the gathering that took place nor the good faith demonstrated by Mr. Scarlata. The snarky Tweets regarding this matter also posted by the VIS are particularly misleading and offensive. Even more disturbing to me as a big fan of the VIS, the facts cited in the story by the VIS itself do not support the clear implications and assertions of opinion put forth by the VIS. It does not matter that the subject revolves around the core journalistic principle and the press’ essential duty to defend Freedom of Information (FOI); it is shoddy, agenda-journalism.
The suggestion that somehow the public was being hoodwinked is an unwarranted, paranoid and cynical view of this event. Speaking as a long-time supporter of “sunshine” laws like the FOIA, if I felt that this discussion between volunteers, elected officials and paid staff violated either the letter or the spirit of the FOI statute I would not have participated. This dialog violated neither letter nor spirit. The implication by the VIS that the public was being excluded is more than inaccurate; in fact the opposite is true.
The reality of the matter is that Mr. Scarlata opened to the public what would typically be a workday discussion. The “cocktail party” analogy attributed to James Smith in the article is ridiculous and betrays his and the VIS’s inadvertent or willful misunderstanding of the event. Mr. Smith is correct that you can’t legislate against people running into each other at a party – but by his reasoning he apparently believes that any other conversation between staff and various elected and appointed officials with implications for public policy that take place during the business day should also be governed by the FOIA. That is ridiculous. It is beyond ridiculous. What occurred in the Aldermanic Chambers at 7 PM is no different than what happens every day, all day long in government offices in the normal course of business. Officials and staff get together to exchange ideas, develop policy and outline strategies to accomplish goals. That is our job. After devising a policy recommendation we take them to a properly posted public meeting of the board or commission of cognizance with a quorum in attendance for public presentation, debate and approval. This VIS- manufactured controversy has only one difference from the normal conduct of business: Mr. Scarlata asked us to get together IN PUBLIC to have a discussion that is generally expected to happen in our offices or a conference room during the business day. How in the world does the VIS get from there to running around with their hair on fire screaming that something underhanded took place??? How do they claim the public was deprived by a conversation that took place in a public meeting room? How does this story even make any sense?
One can understand why the press feels as they do about freedom of information. The press needs to always be wary and must be diligent in ensuring that the public’s right to know about the actions of their government is always protected. It is also without doubt that there are some officials who would prefer to control the dissemination of public information to their own ends and frustrate the press in their pursuit of this information. But the VIS cannot allow their frustration to overwhelm their objectivity and tar honest people and the honest workings of government, particularly when there is a situation where transparency was enhanced, as was the case here. Those who volunteer to participate in their government don’t deserve the damage to their personal reputations inculcated by this reckless characterization of events by the VIS. Their abject suspicion went beyond asking appropriate questions and providing information to the public about their government; they allowed their cynical view of government to overwhelm an honest attempt by volunteers and staff to have a free-flowing exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, this article exemplifies the kind of unnecessary hyperbole that discourages essential participation in their own governance by average citizens and perversely damages the confidence that voters and taxpayers should have in those who represent their interests.
I understand the argument that the lack of a notice did not afford the public an opportunity to observe the discussion. But I can also understand how this occurred given that no board or commission was being brought together for the purpose of taking action. As both the VIS and Attorney Marini correctly noted, the group had no power to act. Despite the VIS’s mis-reporting of Ms. O’Malley’s offer that she could probably seek grant funding for a feasibility study that was discussed as a good first step, no action was taken. In fact Ms. O’Malley made it clear that she must take that directive only from the mayor. Mr. Scarlata invited us to gather in a public meeting room where anyone, including the press was welcome to observe and even participate. All of which is why the FOIA differentiates between meetings with quorums of public bodies present who come together for the purpose of taking action and discussions by any variety of public officials who do not constitute a quorum of a board and therefore have no power to act.
Although the fact that we were scheduled to meet was certainly no secret, personally I would have advised publication of a notice of the proposed ad-hoc exchange. Not because it is required but because it was held in a public meeting room. It is also clear to me that Mr. Scarlata was not within his authority to tell anyone that this public gathering was “not for publishing”. I can see where that might have invited suspicion. Those of us who regularly interact with the press know the ground rules for on and off-the-record conversations, but it is apparent to anyone that any statement made in front of a group of people is going to be subject to publication. But the VIS’s expectation that every volunteer “government official” is going to be totally conversant with the details and interpretations of every statute governing their conduct and then crucifying them for being at variance with the “spirit” of the law is both unreasonable and disingenuous.
It is worth noting, since the VIS story never cited the relevant requirements of the statute or directly made this statement: The gathering of these “government officials” was legal. No law was broken. These are facts that are not stated in the VIS report. Apparently the reader was expected to infer this. Additionally, the quote from Mr. Smith in which he advises the VIS, “At least they didn’t kick you out.” was totally unnecessary and mischaracterizes the actual events and reaction to the presence of a reporter. At no time did I observe anyone make the reporter feel unwelcome or uncomfortable, not once did anyone admonish the reporter for taking notes or recording the meeting. The VIS exhibited extremely bad judgment in then going on to report the pure speculation of Mr. Smith wherein “He also wondered what other discussions officials have convened without the public’s knowledge.” This egregiously irresponsible statement all but accuses all of us of backroom pacts and other such abuse of the public trust without the slightest bit of evidence or confirmation. That statement was nothing but reckless gossip that should not have been used by the VIS. The VIS does not assert that Mr. Smith possesses any special or even cursory knowledge of the workings of Ansonia’s government and I doubt that Mr. Smith has ever been to the Valley or knows any of the people that he so blithely accuses. Shame on the VIS for taking such a cheap shot against these public officials whose only mistake was to accept an invitation to go to a gathering in a public room and participate in a discussion in front of other people. Oh, and by the way, the answer to Mr. Smith’s conjecture is this: Many discussions, every day about every aspect of our government, because that is what “government officials” do: we meet to discuss issues and raise solutions to problems. We conceptualize, we analyze, and we even discuss our ideas with other officials. If we didn’t do that we would be replaced. It is our job.
With the additional effort at transparency made by Mr. Scarlata in this case even though no such effort was required by law, I find it difficult to understand why the VIS felt the need to conduct such an angry, harsh and egregiously misleading attack upon good people doing public business in good faith. It might have been instructive to the VIS when they were writing this awful hit-piece to remember that there was never any effort made to prevent anyone from knowing anything being discussed. But I guess that would have diverted the reader from this contrived narrative.
There was a way to report this story with facts, fairness and an honest attempt to express a concern that both informs the public and leads to a mutually beneficial improvement in the conduct of government. It’s too bad that the VIS didn’t find itself capable of such an article. This kind of reporting can only lead to less transparency and fewer free-flowing public discussions by officials for fear of being burned by the press for their openness. Much the same as doctors who practice preventative medicine for fear of being sued, the quality of our public discourse may suffer from public officials who are afraid to deviate from the letter of FOIA, providing the press and the public with just what the Act requires and no more or less. Ironically, it is the spirit in which public discourse occurs that may suffer from the way this story was reported.
We stand by our reporting on this matter.
Eugene Driscoll
Editor
ValleyIndy.org
First let me apologize if I’ve offended anyone by not posting this gathering. It was meant only to be an informal talk between public officials to discuss possibilities for bringing a college campus to Ansonia. There was no meeting of a board, commission or agency of the city. No quorum of board or commission members was present. Your EDC has been working on this college scenario for the ATP/Palmer buildings for almost 2 years now, with some progress, but because a college scenario for the city could be such a huge asset to us, I didn’t want to take a chance on having it spoiled by misrepresentation. For that reason the meeting was not advertised as public.
There was no attempt to hide the chat. It was held in a public chamber and the press was actually invited to join the conversation! (not mentioned in the article) I simply did not want to pique the public’s interest by holding a public forum on an idea that, while attractive, might not prove feasible. Promoting such a meeting might make headlines, but I felt it would also be very misleading to the public.
As for our guests in attendance, in the past, I have sought the insight of most of the people at this gathering. I trust their commitment to the city and not to political agendas. They are but a few who I have consulted in the past and who, in my opinion, embrace the best intentions for Ansonia. I sought their advice and insight in one gathering of the minds to see if this idea of a downtown campus was a pipe dream or could it be a viable initiative and could we realized the true potential that I envision. I will say this again, this gathering was not meant to deceive or hide as was implied in his article. It was a sharing of ideas and insight, with no agenda, by people from various perspectives who embrace this city and its revival.
Now that the meeting has made headlines, however, I would like to say that the inclusion of a downtown college campus of any size has the potential to change the entire demographic of downtown and propel us like we’ve never been in the recent past. That’s my vision. Still, I’m trying to be very careful of false promises to a city that is desperate for revitalization. I believe in this so strongly that I didn’t want to jeopardize its potential if we moved this initiative forward prematurely or publicize it and have it fall on its face and look like another hollow promise.
The consensus at last week’s meeting was to go forward with a feasibility study. Just this week the Mayor agreed to support such a study, which to me means full steam ahead and commitment to explore the potential.
If there are those with legitimate questions about the transparency of the Economic Development Commission, please email me to discuss further at vinnie.scarlata@ansoniaedc.org, or come join the conversation. Our EDC meetings are the 3rd Thursday of each month in city hall. Please come and see what else is happening in our town and add you input. We’re always looking for new ideas.
Vinnie Scarlata, Chairman
Ansonia Economic Development Commission
It would have been ideal to post notice of this meeting. However, what board or commission met that evening? The answer is none.
Mr. Scarlatta should be applauded for opening up to the public the type of workshop that is routinely held behind closed doors in Ansonia and every other town in Connecticut.
I’m sorry, but laws have no spirit; only interpretations. Mr. Smith is the head of a journalism advocacy group. Therefore, his opinion, while valid, has no bearing. Additionally, he freely admits that the meeting was legal…what more needs to be said?
If anyone truly believes that Mr. Scarlatta or the City of Ansonia violated the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, then they should file a complaint with the FOI Commission.
Woah woah woah, stop the clock.
Let me get this straight. The Valley Council of Governments was silent for years when they thought contamination was in the ground at O’Sullivan’s Island.
But they tear reporters apart for daring to question whether local government is transparent?
Because Valley Council of Governments must be allowed to keep secrets like soil contamination?
Mr. Whamond-
Not sure what one has to do with the other or how OSI provides any relevant illustration to my defense of the charges related to FOI in Ansonia. But on it’s own you raise a fair question that I welcome the opportunity to clarify.
Valley COG works for the mayors. They comprise the VCOG board and I personally take ordering and direction from them. OSI being a municipal project where VCOG acts as adjunct staff to the municipality, I provided advice and took direction from Mayor Staffieri, just as I do now with Mayor Dugatto in regard to the current effort.
It’s important to note that, then or now, there is no information that there was/is risk of exposure at OSI; additional testing needs to be done to analyse the results of the EPA removal (to which VCOG was not a party) in the context of DEEP’s exposure criteria.
The EPA After-Action report on OSI was not published until the year after Mayor Staffieri reopened it to the public. Even so, I advised the mayor to either wait for the report or re-conduct comprehensive analysis of the soils before allowing the public to use the site.
If I had any evidence at any time that contradicted the mayor’s position vis-Ã -vis his opinion of the results of the removal action, I would have immediately gone public with that information despite the personal and professional risk to me and my family.
Upon her election, I immediately advised Mayor Dugatto of my continuing concern regarding O’Sullivan’s and she directed me to prepare a presentation for the Board of Aldermen and outline a strategy to develop the required information and seek the funding to cover all costs including any prudent remedial action to allow for the recreational use of OSI.
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my actions and responsibilities publicly.
As for the FOI issue, I found it important to challenge the intimation by VIS that something was amiss with the meeting held in the Aldermanic Chambers. While I have also taken issue with Mr. Scarlata’s decision to proceed in the manner in which he chose, I thought it was very important to speak out against what I felt to be an incorrect interpretation by the VIS’ “expert” and his gratuitous shots against the meeting’s participants. As I said originally, meetings such as this are proper and necessary in the normal course of business and should not be portrayed as violations of the FOIA.