Claims of ‘illegal’ closed meeting force Democrats to postpone caucus
NORWALK — Claims that Democrats on the Common Council scheduled an “illegal” meeting have escalated already high tensions between city officials, amid the debate over the school budget.
Democrats postponed their caucus meeting, which was planned for Saturday, Feb. 25 and would have been closed to the public, after former Board of Education member Barbara MeyerMitchell and Council member Heidi Alterman, raised concerns the day before. Meyer-Mitchell and Alterman, both Democrats, were concerned that the meeting should have been open to the public because non-caucus members were invited to attend.
To avoid any sense of illegality, Council President Greg Burnett opted to postpone the meeting until a later date and confer with the state Freedom of Information Commission. Officials are still awaiting the commission’s opinion, but the city’s law department has said that noncaucus members may attend under certain conditions.
Typically, having noncaucus members attend and participate could require a gathering to be deemed a public meeting rather than a caucus, Burnett said. However, more than the attendance of non-caucus members is taken into consideration when determining whether the meeting must be made public.
“While both Democratic and Republican caucuses have invited non-caucus members to attend for specific purposes for decades, I want to avoid any inference that the caucus is acting improperly,” Burnett said. “Consideration is also given to the purpose of the caucus, the role played by the noncaucus member and the topics being discussed, among other factors.”
The meeting agenda, shared with Hearst Connecticut Media by Alterman, included a discussion with the state delegation, including former Council members Dominique Johnson, Travis Simms and Kadeem Roberts, an update on last year’s efficiency study and subsequent recommended changes, and a question-and-answer portion regarding the city budget.
The meeting was set to take place from 9 a.m. to noon Saturday at Bunk House in Cranbury Park, according to the agenda. It was initially intended to be a meeting of the whole Council, along with the delegation, but was changed to a caucus meeting once Republican Council member Bryan Meek indicated he was unable to attend.
“Last week I informed them that I would not be able to attend what was originally intended to be a retreat,” Meek said in an email. “I had a 16-hour workday on Saturday and not a minute to spare…If anybody outside of the caucus who was invited showed up and if there were more than seven members then you are correct it was an illegal meeting.”
Burnett, who scheduled the retreat and shared the agenda with Council and state delegates, confirmed the meeting was intended to be a full Council meeting, but the agenda remained the same in both instances.
“The retreat would be conducted in the same manner as all regular Common Council meetings,” Burnett said Tuesday morning. “When Council Member Bryan Meek indicated he was not available to attend the retreat the option to conduct the retreat has a caucus was considered.”
Burnett cited two Freedom of Information Commission decisions, from 1976 and 2006, that support the ability to have a closed caucus meeting with non-caucus members present.
Pending an opinion from the FOIC, which is not expected to be ready until Wednesday, the city consulted with Norwalk’s law department, Burnett said. The department said the law is clear that noncaucus members can attend a meeting without it being a public meeting, as long as the non-caucus members don’t “participate in any discussion, strategy or debate” which is distinct from being present and silent, or present and providing information, Burnett said.
The tensions of budget season and another battle between the Council and Board of Education may be the onus of the mistrust, which Burnett urged Council members and the public to speak about with him.
“I hope in the future, we find ways to work more collaboratively,” Burnett said. “If Ms. Meyer-Mitchell and Ms. Alterman had concerns or questions regarding if the meeting should be a public meeting rather than a caucus, they could have initially raised their concerns to me rather than going straight on social media and to the press with outrageous allegations.”