For the second time this month, the Seymour Board of Police Commissioners Thursday held an executive session meeting to discuss seemingly routine department policy.
Executive session are closed-door meetings allowed in some circumstances under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act. Generally, public bodies are not permitted to meet in private to do basic government business — such as set policy or create legislation.
Click here to read the Freedom of Information Act.
Two weeks ago the Valley Independent Sentinel questioned an Aug. 4 executive session the board held. Its attorney said the session was justified, citing attorney-client privilege.
That’s allowed, an attorney for the Freedom of Information said, assuming the police commission was talking about a specific document covered by attorney-client privilege, such as a letter threatening a lawsuit.
That wasn’t the case Aug. 4 in Seymour — and it does not appear to be the case in Thursday night’s meeting.
The commissioners — this time without their lawyer — met in executive session to talk about a new policy dealing with the use of the Internet and voice mail by police officers.
It was proposed after someone in the police department allegedly accessed someone else’s e‑mail.
After Thursday’s meeting, the Valley Independent Sentinel asked the commissioners what provision of the Freedom of Information Act supported discussion of a policy matter during an executive session.
Chairman Howard Simpson responded: “(Are) You (going to) holler at me?”
Some of the situations where executive sessions are allowed include the discussion of legal strategy, real estate deals or specific employees.
The Seymour Board of Police Commissioners agenda item Thursday specifically identified the discussion topic as “New computer policy.” Two other topics listed for discussion in executive session Thursday were “Personnel Issues” and “Interview Officer Anderson and possible take action.”
Copies of the new policy were given to reporters after the meeting Thursday.
The provisions dictate the use of department e‑mail, voice mail, fax machines and Internet.
The policy was drafted after an officer was suspended for allegedly accessing e‑mail accounts of other officers, according to Police Chief Michael Metzler.
Read background on the controversy here.
“We’re going to lock it all down,” Metzler said of the policy. “People took some liberties they shouldn’t have taken.”
Metzler said only one officer was reprimanded for the incident. He didn’t expect any more people to be punished.
“He’s taken full, sole responsibility for the actions,” Metzler said.
After acknowledging the reason for the policy, Simpson said: “That’s why (the chief) wanted this to go to executive session.”
The policy doesn’t name the officer who was suspended for the e‑mail hacking. The commissioners didn’t mention him during the meeting or afterward in their discussions about the policy.
