FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ADVISORY BOARDS WILL BENEFIT CITIZENS AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS ALIKE
By Colleen M. Murphy*
Last year, Connecticut passed a law that could quickly and inexpensively help citizens answer local freedom of information (“FOI”) questions. The law, introduced by Representative Ronald San Angelo of Naugatuck, was approved in response to the disappointing results of a 1999 statewide survey of compliance with the FOI Act by local government. Public Act 00-136 required the FOI Commission to draft a model ordinance permitting the creation of municipal FOI advisory boards.
Last December, the commission drafted and approved such an ordinance. A copy of the model ordinance was then sent to chief elected, appointed and administrative officials of every municipality in the state. Now, each municipality has a vital opportunity to adopt the model ordinance and create an FOI advisory board.
Why should municipalities take such a step? The answer is simple: the creation of these advisory boards will go a long way toward resolving FOI questions well before they turn into full-blown disputes. The function of the municipal advisory board is to act as a liaison, to citizens and public officials, as well as to the FOI Commission. Members of advisory boards will be trained in the application of the FOI Act to issues of local concern.
Because of their specialized and localized expertise, citizens and public officials will be more comfortable turning to advisory board members in their own municipality to answer questions and to educate and assist them in handling FOI matters. Local advisory board members will be able to respond much more quickly than the FOI Commission, with no cost attached, and will be able to do so with particularized knowledge of the factors unique to the town in which they are located. Local advisory boards also will be able to provide feedback to the FOI Commission on matters of concern to the citizens and officials in their municipalities.
To assist the advisory boards in gaining the requisite expertise, the FOI Commission will be launching a new public education initiative. The primary goal of the initiative will be to foster the liaison relationship with advisory boards by offering a training course and providing relevant reference materials, including packages pertaining to specific components of government, such as personnel, education and law enforcement. The training offered by the FOI Commission will be available on an ongoing basis and FOI Commission staff will likewise be available to provide technical assistance whenever requested.
Two further points must be made with respect to the creation of local freedom of information advisory boards. First, the role of an advisory board, as its name suggests, is advisory only. Its creation does not in any way supplant the role of the municipal attorney, who provides legal advice and whose role is separate and distinct from that of the advisory board. Second, citizens and public officials are not required to utilize the advisory board prior to filing a complaint with, or having their issues resolved by, the FOI Commission. In other words, no one must relinquish any rights under the FOI Act due to the creation of an advisory board.
Establishment of local FOI advisory boards is a good idea. Perhaps the greatest argument in favor of establishing such a board is that its creation will demonstrate a municipality’s commitment to the concept of open government. Lip service is cheap. Action is what counts, especially given the poor state of FOI compliance as demonstrated by the 1999 survey.
To date, at least two municipalities (Bristol and Meriden) have recognized the favorable potential of an FOI advisory board and have adopted the model ordinance. Hopefully, other municipalities will soon follow their lead.