davidmcbeth
Banned
If one noticed, recently the board has begun posting agendas w/o the appellant's name being on the agenda.
These are the agendas on their website and on the secretary of state's website (as required by 1-225).
But there is also a secret agenda that only the board members get....it includes the names of the appellants.
I don't think under our FOIA Act that there can be two agendas for a meeting-one for the public and one for gov't officials.
The board meetings are still open to the public. So they call out their names in public so I don't what they are trying to accomplish.
I understand that Ed Peruta filed a FOIA request asking to see folks' applications in the hopes of collecting plaintiff's for that $50 fee issue (that's good - I hope he files and gets everyone's $$$ back). And that the FOIA case went up to the district court in New Britain and Judge Prescott wrote a terrible decision saying that until an applicant's efforts to get a permit is finalized (I guess to US Supreme Court if an applicant takes it that far) then the name and addresses of permit applicants are not subject to disclosure by anyone per:
CGS 29-28(d)? This states:
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except (1) such information may be disclosed to law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties, including, but not limited to, employees of the United States Probation Office acting in the performance of their duties, (2) the issuing authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that such state or temporary state permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and the local authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that a local permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and (3) such information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 17a-500.
1-210 & 1-211 is the FOIA Act ... so the legislature made this information an exception to the FOIA Act (different than an exemption but has similar affect).
FOIA deals with records and meetings.
I think that Rachael Baird took Judge Prescott's ruling to heart and then asked the BFPE to close its sessions to not allow others to attend the meeting of an appellant and the board during the hearing to decide the application appeal.
But the law gives a date ... the "prior to OCT 2001" .. so I don't think that the exception applies today.
The meetings should be open, the records before the board open, the agendas not redacted.
I guess its time for another FOIA request and a complaint about the meeting issues.
These are the agendas on their website and on the secretary of state's website (as required by 1-225).
But there is also a secret agenda that only the board members get....it includes the names of the appellants.
I don't think under our FOIA Act that there can be two agendas for a meeting-one for the public and one for gov't officials.
The board meetings are still open to the public. So they call out their names in public so I don't what they are trying to accomplish.
I understand that Ed Peruta filed a FOIA request asking to see folks' applications in the hopes of collecting plaintiff's for that $50 fee issue (that's good - I hope he files and gets everyone's $$$ back). And that the FOIA case went up to the district court in New Britain and Judge Prescott wrote a terrible decision saying that until an applicant's efforts to get a permit is finalized (I guess to US Supreme Court if an applicant takes it that far) then the name and addresses of permit applicants are not subject to disclosure by anyone per:
CGS 29-28(d)? This states:
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1-210 and 1-211, the name and address of a person issued a permit to sell at retail pistols and revolvers pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or a state or a temporary state permit to carry a pistol or revolver pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, or a local permit to carry pistols and revolvers issued by local authorities prior to October 1, 2001, shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except (1) such information may be disclosed to law enforcement officials acting in the performance of their duties, including, but not limited to, employees of the United States Probation Office acting in the performance of their duties, (2) the issuing authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that such state or temporary state permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and the local authority may disclose such information to the extent necessary to comply with a request made pursuant to section 29-33 for verification that a local permit is still valid and has not been suspended or revoked, and (3) such information may be disclosed to the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services to carry out the provisions of subsection (c) of section 17a-500.
1-210 & 1-211 is the FOIA Act ... so the legislature made this information an exception to the FOIA Act (different than an exemption but has similar affect).
FOIA deals with records and meetings.
I think that Rachael Baird took Judge Prescott's ruling to heart and then asked the BFPE to close its sessions to not allow others to attend the meeting of an appellant and the board during the hearing to decide the application appeal.
But the law gives a date ... the "prior to OCT 2001" .. so I don't think that the exception applies today.
The meetings should be open, the records before the board open, the agendas not redacted.
I guess its time for another FOIA request and a complaint about the meeting issues.