Borer rebuts the Woodmont Annual meeting FOI update................................

Warden Bonessi said “Anyone can challenge something at FOI.” That’s not true. The fact is that FOI complaints have to be based in law surrounding sections of the statutes under which FOI has been given jurisdiction. Also complainants have to interact with public agencies only and complaints have to be filed within 30 days of the incident. Hearings are scheduled after an ombudsman process is held and only after these conditions are met are FOI hearings scheduled. No complaints are scheduled to be heard that are without merit or appear to be frivolous as determined by the commission. Warden Bonessi also said, “We (Woodmont) won a few and we lost a few, I think we won more than we lost” The facts are in and here are the case numbers and results, it’s all a matter of public record on the FOI site… Docket #’s FIC 2006-468, FIC 2005-168, #FIC 2006-024, #FIC 2004-153 consolidated with 2004-190 & FIC 2004-125 these cases concluded that Woodmont violated the requirements of §1-226(a) and (b), G.S., when Woodmont denied a member of the public the right to record its August 31, 2006 Annual meeting…. Woodmont violated the disclosure and promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., Woodmont failed to prove that any exemption applies to the public record, consequently, it is concluded that Woodmont violated the disclosure provision of §1-210(a), G.S. Docket #FIC 2007-612 this complaint was withdrawn by Stephen Borer when a settlement agreement was reached with Woodmont. The agreement stated Woodmont would post a calendar showing business hours on the doors of the borough hall and finally Docket #FIC 2008-401; this complaint was dismissed by the commission. Concerning the FOI training session that Woodmont attended …The Warden said “This happened before my watch under Dicks watch” (Austin). Warden Bonessi served as a Burgess and should have been watching out for excessive and unnecessary and unapproved legal expenditures. I would expect that to be the job of a burgess. I don’t think it can be entirely characterized as Dick Austin’s responsibility. I never heard Warden Bonessi or any other burgess during Dick Austin’s tenure; question the propriety of over expending money for unnecessary legal appeals. As a matter of fact they all sat there in silence when many of the egregious denials of people’s rights were taking place. The borough attorney was advised by the magistrate in a pre-trial hearing that he would schedule a judge if the borough insisted but noted it was a very weak case they were putting on and questioned the wisdom of choosing to spend an estimated 25,000 dollars for an appeal that had very little chance of success. Woodmont proceeded with the case anyway and lost. The taxpayers were never consulted or asked if they thought it was a good way to spend their money. This is where most of the legal funds were spent when Woodmont’s Board of Warden & Bugesses decided to appeal the FOI Commission’s order that required Woodmont to open the Borough Hall at least one hour/ week. The borough sued FOI in that case. The next objection I have concerns Warden Bonessi’s offer to forget the past and start over fresh. I really would like that to happen. But then Warden Bonessi in the same breath uses his new role as moderator at the Annual Meeting to offer his opinion that my complaints were frivolous; implying that I’m responsible for all these things because I made frivolous public record requests. His opinion has no standing while acting as an unbiased moderator. FOI decided that none of my complaints were frivolous. Let’s not have the new Warden rewriting history for us. He has no evidence for this statement. FOI did not ever deem a complaint of mine to be frivolous. It would be like me offering my opinion in this format on a sprinkling system issue. I would not do that. It has no relevancy. Warden Bonessi also said “I’m going to say personally I thought that many of the requests were frivolous, don’t take that personal.” The fact is not one case was deemed frivolous and the end results are clear. Here is the upside of the entire situation…Good things are happening! 1-The borough hall is open. 2-Postings are being made at the borough hall on the borough hall doors. 3- People are now able to video tape all borough meetings. 4-Persons living outside of Woodmont are obtaining public record. Prior to the FOI cases they were not allowed to. 5-The Borough must maintain strict compliance to CT 1-210 G.S. Disclosure and promptness must be maintained with regard to the public record in Woodmont. 6-A calendar settlement agreement has been reached now. Woodmont has to display a calendar in the doors of borough hall. This is what I consider a more open and accessible Woodmont government. 7- More borough projects are being done. Warden Bonessi said “I hope that we have turned that page and closed that chapter in the borough’s history,” all I have to say about that statement is, Warden Bonessi if you want to turn the page and close a chapter in the borough’s history please don’t continue to rewrite history with a new twist. The verdict was in a long time ago. And one more thing, don’t blame anyone else for your high legal bills. Blame yourself and your attorney Gerald Weiner. Stephen Borer 204 Anderson Ave Milford CT 06460