FOI request yields little

This heavily redacted police incident report is the only information town attorney Robert Smith released on February 7 in response to an FOI request. An unredacted copy of the incident report had been published by insideinvestigator.com on February 3. (Bee-Intelligencer scan)

By MARJORIE NEEDHAM

News of an altercation at Town Hall first surfaced at the January 21, 2025, Board of Selectmen meeting when Selectwoman Jennifer Mahr said she had asked for more information on an altercation between some town employees. Attorney Robert Smith said the matter could not be discussed publicly and also it was not her responsibility. He said the first selectman was responsible for handling employee matters.

Mahr responded she was responsible for ensuring the Town Hall environment is not toxic for employees. Smith said any further discussion should be in an executive session. Mahr said she had requested an executive session for the January 21 meeting, but it was not on the agenda.

She is correct; the January 21 agenda lists no executive session, and because it was a special meeting, no executive session could be added that night. Executive sessions are listed on 25 of the 26 agendas from January 1, 2024 to February 18, 2025. Only the January 21, 2025, agenda has no executive session listed.

At the January 21 meeting, First Selectman Edward B. St. John said the situation had been handled by human resources. Selectman J. Paul Vance said the matter could not be discussed publicly. Mahr said it was a matter of public record because a police report was filed.

St. John said it was delegated to the town’s human resources staff. They received the police report, handled their end and closed the case.

The newspaper began making inquiries at Town Hall, but little information was forthcoming. It seemed a male and a female employee had gotten into an altercation heard throughout the building. The newspaper views reporting on the incident important for two reasons: The many people who conduct business at Town Hall need to know they won’t face a potentially dangerous situation when they go there. And the employees who work there need to feel safe going to work each day.

Dropping by Town Hall the following week, this reporter found St. John and Vance chatting in the Town Hall Conference room. Our request for information was met with an abrupt response from St. John, who said the matter had been taken care of and there was nothing to say about it. Vance said he appreciated that the newspaper wanted information, but he really couldn’t share any information. As the saying goes, “The only thing they were giving away was their breath.”Stonewalled, we went on our way.

And then, on Monday, February 3, Insideinvestigator.com broke the story in the article: “Middlebury Clerk gets panic button after confrontation with building official.” The article told how the police incident report said Town Clerk Brigitte Bessette asked to have a panic button installed in her office after Assistant Town Clerk Marybeth Lukowski transferred a phone call to Mark Lubus in the Building Department downstairs, Lubus came upstairs and began yelling at Lukowski and Bessette, the yelling was heard throughout the building, and police were called. An officer came to the building and spoke to Lukowski, Lubus and Bessette.

The insideinvestigator writer had provided links to every document referenced – including links to the unredacted incident report, to email exchanges about the panic button, and to documents about prior events involving Lubus (one in Selectwoman Jennifer Mahr’s yard and one involving the first selectwoman in Redding, where Lubus worked before coming to Middlebury).

The reporter, Marc E. Fitch, said Lubus did not return an email he sent him seeking comment. In the past, Lubus has not responded to this reporter. When building fees increased, we reached out to Lubus multiple times with requests for comment. He never responded.

On February 4, we delivered an FOI request to St. John asking for the police incident report, the body cam footage, the McInnis (human resources firm) report, and Town Hall camera footage. On February 7, Smith responded in an email with one attachment, the heavily redacted incident report shown in the photo with this article.

Smith said in his email, “The Town will not release the police cam or other video, as this matter did not result in an arrest. The Town is relying on the exemption in Conn. Statutes Sec. 1-210(b)(3)(H), exempting disclosures of ‘uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216’. That exemption is fully explained in the 2023 Appellate Court case of ‘Braasch v. Freedom of Information Commission’.

“I am not aware of any McInnis report. Nevertheless, due (to) the ‘uncorroborated allegations’ exception in the statute, no further material will be released.”

In view of the fact that the incident seems well corroborated by the statements of Bessette, Lukowski and Lubus in the police incident report, in statements by people in Town Hall at the time, and even one person who, the police incident report says, heard the commotion over the phone line, it is unclear why attorney Smith believes the uncorroborated allegations exception applies.