Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: PA13-3/SB1160 - FIC cases 2013-190 and 2013-192 looking to void law

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    PA13-3/SB1160 - FIC cases 2013-190 and 2013-192 looking to void law

    Hi folks.

    The freedom of information commission (ph: 860-566-5682 or 1-800-374-3617 for cheapskates in CT) has docketed by complaints regarding the improper secret meeting aspect of the process by which the bill was formed and resulted in PA13-3.

    This means that the cases will be given a hearing and a ruling will be made regarding these two (of 3 filed, sill waiting for one to be docketed) FIC cases.

    The basis of the complaint(s) is that the secret meetings held in March 2013 by the task force committee members violated our state's open meeting requirements regarding committee members meeting to discuss legislation to be produced from the committee. I don't think that there will be any issue with getting the FIC to make that finding ('cause its true).

    The relief that I ask for is to strike the vote on SB 1160 and nullification of PA13-3.

    The FIC has struck down votes of legislative bodies before, just not a bill of this magnitude or subject matter (recalling that FIC commissioners are appointed by the legislature and the governor ~ I may wish to ask for those appointed by these two to be banned from considering the case~). But the authority of the FIC to strike the vote and nullify the bill is certainly there.

    If anyone wishes to be added to the case as a party or an intervenor you may contact the FIC or shoot me a pm with contact information to discuss. I think that one can be added as either a party or intervenor in this case as we all have an interest in the processes that produced this bill/law and of the law itself.

    It costs nothing to go before the FIC..its a free process. Nothing to lose scenario, everything to gain.

    It would be best if more than one person is listed on the complaint to be honest.

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    should the whole "e-cert without written facts necessitating the emergency" also be a part of the FIC cases?
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    should the whole "e-cert without written facts necessitating the emergency" also be a part of the FIC cases?
    It will be ... everything past the point of the secret meetings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •