Public agencies that allow their members to participate remotely in public meetings do not have to notice those meetings as electronic or give the public the ability to participate remotely, according to several recent rulings from the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC).

The commission recently released rulings in three of four complaints Simsbury resident Lori Boyko has brought against the town’s Library Board of Trustees (BOT). Boyko began attending BOT meetings roughly a year ago and grew concerned about the town’s adherence to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after documenting a number of alleged violations of open meeting requirements at several meetings.

Chief among Boyko’s arguments was a claim that public meetings become hybrid meetings, which are not well defined in FOIA, when public officials are allowed to attend electronically. As a result, Boyko argued, public agencies are required to notice meetings as electronic meetings and give the public the opportunity to attend electronically as well.

While the FOIC did not agree with this argument, it did find the BOT had violated FOIA in several ways.

In the largest of Boyko’s complaints, she claimed the BOT had violated FOIA at two meetings in several ways. On three occasions, Boyko contended the board had violated FOIA by failing to provide notice that the public could participate electronically. She argued meetings the BOT held in July and August 2024 were hybrid meetings because some members of the board attended remotely. However, the meeting agenda indicated the meeting would be held in-person and did not give the public the option to participate remotely.

Because hybrid meetings are relatively new and postdate the passage of FOIA, there is no mention of them in statute. Similarly, while there are specific requirements for when public agencies must provide public notice of in-person and electronic meetings, there is no clear-cut requirement in FOIA for giving public notice of the ability to electronically participate in a meeting that is being held in-person, particularly when the public have the ability to comment in-person.

Boyko argued that FOIA does require public agencies to give notice of the public’s ability to participate in a meeting remotely if board members are participating electronically. She argued that, under the law, as long as board members are participating electronically, the meeting is electronic, and FOIA’s requirements for giving the public notice for how to participate in electronic meetings applies.

But the FOIC didn’t find this argument persuasive. Hearing officer Mary-Kate Smith wrote in her decision that while FOIA states that a public meeting is “accessible by means of electronic equipment” only if the public is allowed to participate to the same extent they can in person, for example by being able to give public comment electronically and in-person, the law requires public notice of meetings and meeting agendas to include “instructions for the public, to attend and provide comment or otherwise participate in the meeting, by means of electronic equipment or in person, as applicable and permitted by law.”

The FOIC came to the conclusion in a similar claim Boyko made in another complaint, which argued an August 19 meeting was a hybrid meeting but did not give the public the ability to participate electronically despite board members and a presenter appearing remotely.

Smith found that this language “implies the legislature intended the remote meeting provisions to apply when the public was allowed to participate remotely, as opposed to the members of the Board and invited presenters.”

In the same complaint, Boyko also argued that the BOT did not make a “good faith effort” to identify themselves each time they participated in the July 15 meeting. FOIA requires that public officials who participate in public meetings make a “good faith effort” to identify themselves by name and title each time they speak.

Smith noted that the BOT conceded that “in the past at Board meetings generally” some members failed to identify themselves but they were now making “good faith efforts to ensure that all members” are aware of the requirement. She also found no evidence BOT members had violated the “good faith standard” at the July 15 meeting.

She made the same complaint of the BOT’s August 19 meeting, arguing board members failed to identify themselves prior to speaking. At a hearing on that complaint, the BOT stated they were unaware that FOIA required them to list which members attended electronically and in person prior to the August 19 meeting. Again, the FOIC found this violated FOIA.

At the same meeting, they voted to approve minutes from a May 20, 2024, meeting, which had not been properly noticed. An agenda for the meeting was also not posted 24 hours prior to the meeting, as FOIA requires. Boyko argued that both actions violated FOIA.

Smith found that the FOIC did not have jurisdiction over Boyko’s claim about the inaccuracy of the vote to approve the May minutes at their July meeting because it was filed too late. Boyko filed her complaint in August 2024, and the commission found that the complaint about the inaccuracy of the minutes should have been filed closer to the May meeting date.

FOIA generally requires complaints about alleged FOIA violations to be filed within 30 days of an incident occurring. The finding means that the window when complaints can be filed for alleged FOIA violations relating to meeting minutes or agendas begins when they are initially posted or acted upon. If a requester becomes aware of an impropriety outside that window when action is taken at a later meeting, such as when a board votes on changes to past meeting minutes, the window to review those actions may have closed.

The BOT did state during a hearing on the complaint that the May meeting had not been properly noticed; they claimed this was due to staffing shortages and changes.

She further argued that the board voted to approve a new policy at the July 15 meeting without providing enough detail for the public to understand what was being discussed or voted on. She made a similar claim about the agenda of the August 6 meeting not being specific enough for the public to understand what was being discussed.

The FOIC also concluded that these remaining allegations in Boyko’s complaint did not violate FOIA.

Boyko also argued the board improperly entered executive session during its July meeting. No executive session was listed on the meeting agenda and the board did not provide a reason for entering executive session at the July meeting. Boyko also contended the library director was present for the executive session when she should not have been.

During the hearing, the BOT conceded that the agenda for the July meeting did not give a reason for entering executive session and that they did not state one prior to voting to enter executive session. The FOIC found this was a violation of FOIA. They also found Boyko’s claim that the library director attended the executive session improperly was correct, as she was not a member of the BOT.

Further, the commission found that the BOT violated FOIA during their August 6 meeting, the agenda of which simply listed one of the items for discussion as “art exhibit.” Smith found that the description was “overly broad and did not fairly apprise the public of the matter to be considered and acted on.”

Despite multiple findings that the BOT had violated FOIA, the commission declined to impose any penalty as the town underwent voluntary training on FOIA in January.

In a second of Boyko’s complaints that also made allegations about the board’s August 6 meeting, the FOIC found the BOT violated FOIA by failing to note in meeting minutes which members attended electronically and which attended in person.

Boyko requested a civil penalty be imposed against the BOT, but the commission declined to do so because they found no evidence they “acted in bad faith or otherwise engaged deliberately in the violation of the public’s rights” under FOIA. They also declined to order additional training on FOIA for the BOT because the town underwent voluntary training in January 2025.

The FOIC ordered the BOT to update the meetings for its August 6 minutes within 15 days to indicate which members attended in-person and which attended electronically.

In a third complaint, Boyko alleged the BOT violated FOIA at an August 19 meeting by voting to amend minutes from a July 15 meeting that said the board did not enter executive session at the meeting. The board did enter executive session during its July 15 meeting, but did so improperly and, as the FOIC found, in violation of FOIA.

Again, the FOIC found it didn’t have jurisdiction over this claim because it was filed outside the 30-day time frame within FOIA, requiring complaints to be filed within 30 days of an alleged violation occurring.

Boyko’s third complaint further alleged that a record of votes taken during the August 19 meeting was recorded improperly, stating the BOT had voted unanimously on several items when several members abstained from voting. Boyko argued that a roll call vote was required, as FOIA requires of meetings conducted electronically unless the vote is unanimous.

The commission disagreed, finding that the use of the word ‘unanimous’ in recording a vote, followed by a list of members who abstained, reflected a unanimous vote among members who did vote. They concluded a roll call vote was not required.

Again, the FOIC declined to impose a civil penalty or require additional FOIA training as Boyko requested.

At the meeting at which the commission voted to adopt the hearing officer’s findings in her three complaints, Boyko again argued that FOIA requires meetings where public officials are attending remotely be noticed to allow the public the option to also attend electronically, stating that the hearing officer’s findings “materially differ” from the statute as it’s written.

She also challenged the finding that the commission did not have jurisdiction over the BOT’s votes to alter meeting minutes, arguing the 30-day period should begin from the date of the vote to change the minutes, not the date of the original meeting.

The commission voted unanimously to adopt the hearing officers’ findings in all three of Boyko’s complaints.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.