BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
REPLY TO CT ADDRESS
November 24, 2009
Michael Del Sant:.o , Chairman Southington Planning and zoning Commission 75 Main S;::. Southing;::on, CT 06489
Re:
Freedom of Information Demand
Dear Chairman Del Santo, Concerned Citizens for a Pornography Free Southington (Concerned Citizens) is a not-for-profit unincorporated association made up of citizens with a direct int:.erest:. in Southington, who eit:.her live or work in Southington, that have retained ;::he American Center for Law and ,Tustice to limit and where legal possible. pornography and/or obscenity, in ;::he Town of Concerned Citizens does not seek an adversarial relationship with the Planning and Co::nmission (PZC) but it wi take all st:.eps within the law t:.o ensure that pornography does not gain a foothold In Sou;::hington. Although Concerned Citizens would rat:.her work in a cooperati ve way wi th PZC, that is up to PZC to decide. By meeting in Executive Session, and taking no from ;::he cornmun of citizens that live in Southington, the PZC has sent a signal to the cOITJ!.1unity that it:. does not want to cooperat:.ively. It is the desire of Concerned Ci;::izens that:. the PZC t:he way it has been privately meeting to discuss these matt:ers, particular privat:.e meetings wi;::h ;::hose individuals and corporations that seek to bring pornography into Southington. By way of introduction, the ACLJ is an zation dedicated to the defense of consti ;::utional liberties secured by law and the promot:.ion of fami vaLles. ACLJ attorneys have argued before the Supreme Court of the Uni ted Stat:.es in a number of s ficar.;:: cases involving the freedoms of speech and religion. See, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. SUJ1lInum, 129 S. Ct:.. 1125 (2009) (,lIlani:nous holdir.g that the Free Clause does not require the government to accept counter-monuments when it has a war memorial or Ten ComInandments monument on i;::s property); McConnel v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003) (unanisoDsly holding t:.hat minors oy the protect ion of the First Amendment); Lamb's v. Center Moriches Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993) (unanisously holding that a church access to public school ses t:.o show a film series on parenting violated the First Amendi'Ttent); Ed. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) (holding by an 8 vote that allowing a student Bible club to meet on a public school's campus did not violate t:.he Sstablishment Clause); Ed. of A.irport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 (1987) (unanimously strikir.g down a p u b l i c ' s bar. on First Amendment activit:ies) . DEMAND
1
On October 20 th and November 17 th , the Planning and zoning Co~~ission of the Town of Southington met in Executive Session stating as the reason for such outside the of the public that it was discussing "pending litigation". No information was as to the name of this pending 1 ion or what it was about. One of the purposes of this letter is to Demand that the and Commission furnish the name of the lit referred to as justification for its Executive Sessions. In addition Concerned Citizens hereby Demar.d s of said "Executive Sessions" including any notes taken by individual members of the events and conversations that took place. In addition Concerned Citizens Demand any of said meetings in whatever form said recordings took place whether through audio or visual means or any other form of copies of the conversations that took This demand is made pursuant to Section 1 210 of the Freedom of Information Act. These copies may be sent to me at my Connecticut address given in this letter. Concerned Ci tizens further demands the to any documents, or other materials that cannot be copied to be furnished to me as their agent.
LAW CT law requires that:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or t on le by a n y i c agency, whether or not such records are by any law or any rule or regulation, shall be ic records and every person shall have the right to (1) t such records during regular ce or bus.iness hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with of section 1-212, or (3) receive such a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-210.
De:!',and has been made above for such ic records. Section 1 200 allows for "Executive sessions" at which a public agency may meet and exclude the ic but it sets out the reasons for said exclusions. The stated the Southington PZC for exc the ic from its Executive sessions on Oct. 2 and Nov. 1 was that the committee was going to discuss pending litigation as allowed by Sec.1 -200 of CT law but no such pending 1 tigation was ever specified. By this letter Concerned Citizens hereby demands to know the name and docket: number of said litigation. As stated at the outset of this letter Concerned Citizens does not seek an adversarial relationship wi th this body. It considers its work to be of assistance to the work of the PZC. The retail permit granted by the ZEO for a business that is a known purveyor of pornography throughout the state was a ::nistake that put this town in a defensive position with regards to this business. The failure to revoke the t in a manner for and substantive defects was also a mistake that may cost the town in its efforts to keep pornography out of zones and areas in town which its residents, particu children, frequent on a regular basis. Although the town has a moratorium in effect dealing with pornographic businesses, the meetings between the PZC with the owner of the pornography business indicate a weakness on the part of the Commission, a defensiveness caused by irst letting this business in the door creating an s situation.
2
Furthermore the PZC does not appear to have done any due dil with regard to this business seeking to display its pornography in a retail zone. The town of Berlin is in court with this same business on what appears to be the same issue before this Co:rmission. Concerned Citizens would like to know if PZC has spoken to counsel for the Town of Berlin which has had much success in this case and represents most of the Zoning Co:rmissions in CT. If it did it would have learned that the used by the Town of Berlin to define Sexually Obscene materials was upheld by the Supreme Court of CT and that the Second Circui t Court of Appeals, in an appeal from an adverse decision by the Federal District Court for CT, already reversed the iminary injunction granted by that court in favor of the pornographer. Counsel for Berlin is therefore te optimistic about his chances for success against this same business seeking to pressure Southington into granting them further
Permits. Leaving aside the failure of the Co~~ission to be prepared for the pornographer when he first came to town and granted him a permit that gave him a shoe in the door in Southington, it is imperative that the Commission speak to counsel for Berlin about what has worked for them in this matter. This is the law firm that the PZC should have been speaking to all along. Attorney Radshaw of Howd and Ludorf, has dealt with VIP throughout the state as the law fir::r. chosen by the I insurance firm for zoning commissions in Connecticut. By the way we hope that the PZC has checked out its own insurance, if there is a real threat of lit ion in this matter, to ask for the name of the law firm that will be representing its members should real lit ensue. ""Ie have got to believe that the posturing with irrelevant law firms was only for show and that the PZC has contacted the law firm that wi.ll be representing its members pursuant to its insurance covering the PZC members in the event of a lawsuit. Concerned Citizens stands to assist the PZC in any manner the Commission finds helpful but it will not stand idly by and allow the Commission to grant further permits to this business which belongs in a zone with similar businesses, not in a retail zone. Vincent HcCarthy American Center for Law and Justice 11 W. Chestnut Hill Rd Litchfield, CT 06759 860 567-948 -p 860 567-9513 f 860-4 9-8387-c
3