A statement provided last week by Neil and Annie Hornish to Inside Investigator cites a recent Freedom of Information Commission finding against Suffield First Selectman Colin Moll as vindication of their transparency complaints surrounding his administration, and cites several emails sent by Moll as proof of his bias towards the family.
“This violation contributes to a troubling pattern of secrecy and unprofessional conduct by First Selectman Moll, who has simultaneously waged a vendetta against Neil and Annie Hornish, a Suffield family fighting to save their beloved dog, Dexter, from a town-ordered execution,” reads a statement released by the family. “Moll’s FOI violation is particularly egregious — given Moll received FOI training just a week before the June 5 meeting.”
The Hornishes said the ruling, as well as several other communications revealed via FOIA, are proof of “Moll’s contempt towards the Hornish family.” Moll believes the Hornishes’ frequent FOIA requests and FOIC complaints, of which there are two more set to be ruled on in the fall, are being used to “deflect attention away from their continued losses in the dog case.”
“Their focus on me personally, particularly in an election year, is the same obvious strategy they once took against the previous First Selectman, hoping that perhaps the next First Selectman will be sympathetic to the story they manufactured about what their dog did,” said Moll. “I think the residents of Suffield have their eyes open to these tactics.”
On July 3, the Hornishes’ received several emails sent by Moll that they believe show a pattern of bias against them. In one email, sent May 6, 2025, Moll called the Hornishes’ attendance of town meetings “unbelievable and unfortunate,” and said they turn “everything political and obstruct however they can.”
In another email, sent on May 13, he forwarded a statement released by the Hornishes in which they asked the Town to “end its vilification campaign” to someone, calling it “sadly entertaining,” and “mind-blowing,” instructing them to “do with it as you please.”
“This reckless directive has the potential to turn the Hornish family’s plea for dignity into fodder for harassment,” said the Hornishes.
He forwarded the same release to a publication that the Hornishes said has, “altered photos to create caricatures and malicious meme content of the family.” Moll depicted these actions as being a natural result of his frustration regarding the Town’s legal battle with the family.
“For the last five and a half years, every day the elected officials of Suffield are asked about this dog case and when it will be over,” said Moll. “The Town is exhausted by this unnecessary litigation. It should not be surprising to anyone that elected officials receive these questions from residents and media outlets and respond to them earnestly.”
On Feb. 12, 2025, Moll’s assistant, Katherine Lambert, emailed town officials with the intent of setting a time in which they could visit Dexter, a meeting the Hornishes’ referred to as being organized “in secret.” Lambert said in the email that the officials’ arrivals would have to be “in increments, to avoid the visit becoming an official meeting.”
“The conduct demonstrated by First Selectman Moll in Suffield is not only unprofessional, but it erodes public trust,” said the Hornishes. “The taxpayers of Suffield deserve mature, accountable, and transparent leadership—not petulance, delinquency and obfuscation.”
The recent FOIC ruling found Moll to have provided ambiguous reasoning for an executive session taken at a July 4, 2024, Town meeting. Per the complaint, the reason given for the executive session on the meeting’s agenda was “litigation.” While Moll believed this was good enough, the FOIC did not.
“This Commission repeatedly has held that, for the public to be fairly informed of the reason for an executive session listed on the public agency’s meeting agenda, the agency must give some indication of the specific topic to be addressed,” read the Commission’s ruling. “Descriptions such as “legal strategy” or “pending litigation” are inadequate.”
Moll provided an affidavit to the FOIC in which he stated that the executive session was used to discuss “nine pending matters” and “two matters where a notice of intent to sue had been filed.” Moll goes on to state in the affidavit that the session covered “all pending litigation that the Town of Suffield had pending as of that date.” He was later cross-examined at the FOIC’s contested hearings on the matter, and when questioned on whether the session discussed only pending litigation or also discussed litigation that had not made it before a court, such as the two notices of intent, he provided “vague and conflicting testimony.”
“The respondent first selectman was unable to articulate in his own words the distinction between ‘pending matters’ and matters there is a ‘notice of intent to sue,’” read the ruling.
The FOIC also questioned Moll’s executive assistant, Kristen Lambert, and Selectwoman Kathie Harrington. Lambert was found to have “presented conflicting testimony” regarding Moll’s “role in preparing and approving the agenda items at issue,” and Harrington was “unable to corroborate” Moll’s version of events regarding the session’s topics of discussion and “could not recall anything that was discussed at such executive session.”
Moll said that he was “disappointed in the decision” but that he respects it, and will pay the $250 fine imposed on him. He also said that the Town will “continue to work to improve processes” to remain “fully compliant with all relevant notice requirements.”
“I also note that there is a split of authority within the FOIC opinions on this subject and we encourage the FOIC to issue a clear bright line ruling of exactly how Towns should properly notice these types of executive sessions,” said Moll. “We will continue to advocate for a bright line rule through the legislature even as we continue to improve.”
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
