beachlaw

Full hearing likely in bias probe
Grenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published June 1 2006

Nearly a year after a minority group of women said they were discriminated against at Greenwich Point Park, a full investigation of the incident looms for the town and several of its employees, who could be questioned at open public hearings about the case.

Town Attorney John Wayne Fox said yesterday that the town was waiting to hear from the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities about potential witnesses that may be called in the case.

The commission filed a complaint against the town in August, three months after Sheila Foster and Millie Bonilla, the wives of former New York Mets players, and a third resident, Claudette Rothman, said they were prevented from exercising together as part of an organized fitness group on the basis of skin color.

The women later filed their own complaints with the commission. But they rejected as insufficient the terms of a proposed settlement in the case in April that would have required the town to conduct diversity training for several of its employees, incorporate anti-discrimination language into its beach policy and repay the women's legal expenses. While the town and the commission could have reached a settlement on their own and left the women to pursue their individual cases, Fox advised against a bilateral agreement.

"If it was not a global settlement, we were not interested in pursuing it any further," Fox said. "There would still remain the underlying issue, the underlying complaint. Well, they (the women) would always be looking for more."

Fox said the hearings are likely several months off.

CHRO Executive Director R. Hamisi Ingram described the breakdown of the negotiations as unfortunate, saying that the commission preferred to settle the case, even if meant without having the women's approval.

"We had a good agreement," Ingram said. "The town stepped up to the plate and said they would be accountable. But the complainants, the three principals, it just wasn't enough for them. I don't know if they're going to get any more when it goes to a full hearing."

Joseph A. Moniz, the Hartford lawyer who represents the three women, would not comment about the case, saying he was frustrated by the public discussion of the proposed settlement terms. Bonilla and Foster, who are the wives of former New York Mets Bobby Bonilla and George Foster, said they were denied entry to the beach on June 7.

A town investigation into the allegations found that the women were not carrying the necessary resident beach cards required to enter the park. Rothman, who is of West Indian descent, said she was allowed to enter the park but told that group exercise was not permitted. The town's investigation said that group exercise is prohibited for liability reasons. At least two other groups have been allowed to exercise at the beach, however.

Greenwich Time featured a women's fitness boot camp at the park in May 2002. The newspaper early last month also profiled a fitness clinic for child triathletes at the park. When questioned about the most recent situation by the newspaper, park employees said the group will no longer be able to use the beach but could use other town fields with a permit and proper insurance.

"I don't think an activity like that hurts the town's case at all," Fox said. "If, in fact, you want to engage in a commercial activity, everyone is treated the same. You need a permit. We're not inclined to have you do it on the beach because of the nature of it being so small. No discrimination there. No discrimination with these women."

A message seeking comment from the clinic's organizer, Bill Bogardus, was left at his home. Ingram said he was not sure if the commission would make an inquiry about the potential inconsistency.

"It sure is interesting that they said there would be no group activity and then there's group activity," he said.

Town OKs bias settlement
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published March 23 2006

The town accepted the terms of a proposed settlement of a civil rights complaint yesterday, eight months after a group of women that included the wives of two former New York Mets said they were victims of bias at Greenwich Point Park. Several municipal employees, including the town's affirmative action officer, will be required to attend anti-discrimination and/or diversity training classes under the terms as described by R. Hamisi Ingram, the executive director of the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

The proposed settlement also calls for the town to incorporate language guaranteeing equal access to parks in its beach policy and provides reimbursement of the women's legal expenses, which are estimated at $10,000 to $15,000. Officials refused to release a copy of the agreement until the commission and the women approve it.

"This is a good resolution of a difficult issue," First Selectman Jim Lash said. Ingram hailed the proposal's unanimous approval by the Board of Selectmen at a morning meeting at Town Hall and said his agency had agreed in principle to its terms. A final vote by the commission is scheduled for April 11 in Hartford.

"I think that's fantastic," Ingram said. "It's a very good indication of what happens when folks cooperate."

The commission filed a complaint against the town in late August, three months after the wives of former New York Mets players Bobby Bonilla and George Foster said they were denied entry to the beach at Greenwich Point Park on the basis of skin color. A subsequent town investigation into the June 7 incident found that town residents Millie Bonilla and Sheila Foster, who are Puerto Rican and black, respectively, were not carrying beach cards required to enter the park.

That investigation also contested claims by the women that the remaining members of their organized fitness group who did have beach cards were told to disband by park employees because they were mostly minorities.

Town Affirmative Action Officer Kelly Houston found no merit to discrimination claims in her investigation. But the women filed their own complaints against the town in December, saying that Houston's findings were severely compromised by a series of e-mails that she exchanged before the conclusion of her investigation with a personal trainer the women had hired.

"Seeing a group of Black people that they do not know is going to draw attention," Houston, herself a minority, wrote in the June 8 e-mail, which was obtained by Greenwich Time and contained Houston's name, title and town e-mail address.

"I do think that you can use the facilities. However you will have to be discreet and if you are asked you are going to have to say you are just working out with friends. If you are doing a black group, you are going to need to cut your numbers down. Welcome to Greenwich!"

CHRO officials have said that Houston and several other employees in the town's Human Resources and Parks departments will be required to attend a 10-hour antidiscrimination training seminar in June and 5-hour refresher classes every year indefinitely.

Efforts to reach Houston yesterday were unsuccessful.

Hartford lawyer Joseph A. Moniz, who represents Bonilla, Foster, and a third town resident, Claudette Rothman, said he was not prepared to comment on the proposal because he had not seen it. His clients have yet to decide on the terms of the proposal. Town officials, meanwhile, said that their acceptance of the proposed terms was not an admission of wrongdoing.

"In this agreement, the complainants continue to assert that the town violated their rights, and the town asserts that we did not," Lash said.

The town's chief elected official compared the settlement process to the mediation used in other disputes, such as a divorce. "It's called conciliation," he said. Ingram, CHRO's senior official, disagreed with Lash's comparisons.

"I wouldn't like to think of it as a divorce," Ingram said. "I would like to think we worked together for a common good."

Town: No report on beach access inquiry
Greenwich TIME
By Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published January 7 2006

Challenged to turn over an investigator's report on an alleged bias incident at Greenwich Point, town officials say no such report exists on the incident involving the wives of two former New York Mets.

First Selectman Jim Lash said yesterday that the town tried to resolve the matter informally through interviews rather than resort to a full-scale investigation because the alleged victims never filed an official complaint with the town.

Millie Bonilla and Sheila Foster blasted the town after the latest disclosure in the controversial case, which is the subject of a civil rights probe. The town is engaged in settlement talks with the state's civil rights agency and the women, who are the wives of Bobby Bonilla and George Foster. The women said yesterday they were shocked to learn that the town had no documentation to support findings by its affirmative action officer that beach employees were following protocol when they denied them entry to Greenwich Point Park on June 7. Bonilla and Foster, who were part of an organized fitness group of mostly minority residents that tried to use the park, did not have beach cards required to use the facility, according to the officer's informal investigation.

"What investigation?" said Bonilla, who claimed she was denied entry to the beach because she is Puerto Rican while a white member of the same exercise group was admitted to the park without a beach card.

Lash said the town's handling of the inquiry was consistent with past practice, however.

"Every item of this kind that comes to the affirmative action officer is taken seriously and the key people are interviewed, but most of the time the result is to resolve the issue itself rather than produce a report, because that's what most people want -- action not paperwork," Lash said.

Formal complaint or not, the nature of the allegations merited a full-scale investigation, the women said yesterday.

"It is appalling that they've tried to minimize this whole conflict," said Foster, who is black. "I think that they didn't want to deal with this."

Greenwich officials say the town has a zero-tolerance policy against discrimination and that beach users must carry a beach card or pay a $10 daily admission fee to enter Greenwich Point.

In addition to finding that Bonilla and Foster were not carrying beach cards, Town Affirmative Action Officer Kelly Houston's investigation cited liability concerns -- not race, as the women had alleged -- as the reason for the town's refusal to allow the fitness group's remaining members who did have beach cards to exercise at the beach.

At the time she released her findings on June 28, Houston said she had interviewed seven of the nine people who were part of the fitness group and four town employees about the incident.

The women contested those remarks yesterday, saying they were never interviewed by Houston, who also is the town's assistant human resources director and is a member of a minority herself.

"They didn't take us seriously -- This was a bunch of housewives -- they'll go away," said Claudette Rothman, a resident of West Indian descent. Rothman, who also is a party to the settlement negotiations, has said she was admitted to the park but told the group could not exercise together.

Houston had no comment yesterday when asked about the scope of her investigation, one that the women say was contradicted by a series of earlier e-mails that she exchanged with a personal trainer who they hired to lead the fitness group.

"Seeing a group of Black people that they do not know is going to draw attention," Houston wrote in the June 8 e-mail, which was obtained by Greenwich Time and contained her name, title and town e-mail address.

"I do think that you can use the facilities. However you will have to be discreet and if you are asked you are going to have to say you are just working out with friends. If you are doing a black group, you are going to need to cut your numbers down. Welcome to Greenwich!"

Lash said he did not have "firsthand knowledge" of the scope of Houston's inquiry. Greenwich Time requested a copy of Houston's findings under the state Freedom of Information Act, but was told no written report existed.

While the state does not require public or private entities to issue a report in response to bias allegations, a high-ranking civil rights official said it "would be wise to write up something" in such a case.

"Usually you make a written report based on their activities," said R. Hamisi Ingram, executive director of the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities. A proposed settlement between the town and the commission would require Houston and other employees in the town's Human Resources and Parks departments to attend a 10-hour anti-discrimination training class in June.

Those workers also would be obligated to be retrained each year indefinitely during a five-hour refresher course as part of the settlement.

Other terms of the settlement include a provision that would force the town to incorporate language guaranteeing equal access to parks in the town's beach-access policy and display anti-discrimination posters in town facilities.

"I am not happy with the terms that are on the table," said Bonilla, who, along with Foster and Rothman, said they were leaning toward rejecting the proposed settlement's terms.

Rothman called for stricter penalties to be brought against the town.

"Giving a minority woman 10 hours of anti-discrimination training is an insult," Rothman said of Houston.

State drops trespassing case
By Martin B. Cassidy
Staff Writer

Published August 25 2005

STAMFORD -- A trespassing infraction against a Stamford cyclist stemming from his refusal to pay the town entry fee for Greenwich Point Park was dropped yesterday by prosecutors, who said the cost of a trial outweighed the benefit. Supervisory Assistant State's Attorney Steve Weiss said potentially spending thousands to try the infraction was a key factor, noting that the cyclist, Paul Kempner, hired two attorneys to challenge it.

"The case involves a 75-year-old man riding his bike who went out and hired an attorney, at some expense I assume . . . it seemed silly (to continue the case)," Weiss said. On June 8, police fined Kempner $92 for riding his bike into Greenwich Point without paying the fee. But Weiss said the decision was not based on any questions as to the constitutionality of Greenwich's beach access policy for out-of-towners.

"This wasn't done on constitutional law grounds," Weiss said. "We're not saying there should be parades of bicycles in the park."

Kempner, a retired real estate investor who lives nearby on Stamford's shoreline, said the dropped charge seemed like a repudiation of the town's $10 daily entrance fee for nonresidents. The town also charges out-of-towners a $20 parking fee, bringing a visit by one person in a car to $30.

"I feel completely vindicated," Kempner said. "I don't know why the town takes this stance with cyclists, walkers and runners who pass through the park without using any services." Kempner said he would return to the park to bike today.

In a motion to dismiss, lawyers for Kempner questioned the fairness of fees Greenwich established for out-of-towners after a 2001 state Supreme Court decision that ordered the town to open its parks to nonresidents. The decision said the town's policy of barring nonresidents from its beaches and public parks violated the First Amendment right to free speech because parks are forums for public discourse. The decision said the town could charge reasonable fees for admittance. Town officials said they expected the case's dismissal to have no impact on the collection or enforcement of the town's beach policy.

Town Attorney John Wayne Fox defended the fees the town charged yesterday, and said that Weiss' decision did not raise concerns about whether Greenwich's beach policy was enforceable. The 2001 Supreme Court decision opening Greenwich beaches did not prohibit charging higher fees to nonresidents, Fox said.

"From our perspective, the fees being charged are comparable with fees charged in other communities," Fox said. "If he wishes to challenge it, it is certainly within his rights." First Selectman Jim Lash said he considered the out-of-towner fees fair, and that he expected that trespassers would be cited and fined for disregarding it. The higher nonresident fee takes into account the fact that Greenwich residents pay high property taxes, partially to maintain the beaches.

"We don't set out to cite people, but if they blatantly ignore instructions, we are going to," Lash said. "We hope in fact our citations will be enforced."

Police Chief James Walters said officers would continue to issue trespassing infractions to out-of-towners who don't pay beach access fees, unless prosecutors take issue with it.

"If they did, we'd have to see what other options we have or whether the ordinance needs to be rewritten," Walters said. Kempner and his attorney, J. Joseph Bainton said dropping the charges signaled a reluctance to defend the beach access policy for out-of towners.

"When challenged, the prosecution was abandoned," Bainton said. "If they think they had a right to preclude him, they should never have dismissed the case." Bainton said the $10 daily fee violated the First Amendment rights of Kempner to access public lands, because it is high enough to discourage nonresidents from using the park.

"If Greenwich were ever to try to cite Mr. Kempner again they could face a very serious federal civil rights lawsuit," Bainton said. "They can choose to do so again, but if they do it is at their own peril." Kempner said that he didn't object to the town's parking fee, which is linked to the site's limited number of spaces. Before being cited, Kempner said all but one gatekeeper at the Point allowed him into the park without paying for a period of several years.

"Nobody questioned my right to be there," he said. William Dunlap, a professor at Quinnipiac University School of Law said that in itself the decision not to prosecute Kempner would not curb police from citing out-of-towners.

"It's not a precedent of any kind," Dunlap said. "It might be an indication for other people that if they hire a lawyer and file a brief they can beat it . . . but for the next person it may not be worth it." But Dunlap said the state Supreme Court could address the issue whether towns are justified in charging out-of towners higher fees than residents, and if so how high the fees can be.

"It could have political implications if enough people think the town won't prosecute or if the town begins to crack down on it." The fees charged by the town for beach access seem unreasonably high and could be challenged legally for prohibiting use by nonresidents, said Stamford lawyer Brenden Leydon, who sued the town over its residents-only beach-access policy after being denied entry to Greenwich Point in 1995.

"It materially infringes going there by charging way more than most people are willing to pay," Leydon said. "This could cause problems to Greenwich by exposing constitutional flaws to what they are doing."

Made famous by a landmark court case, Greenwich Point experienced an 8-percent increase in beach attendance last month compared to the same time last year, parks records show. While overall attendance at the 147-acre park rose from 43,519 last year to 47,326 in April this year, the number of single-visit passes validated by gatekeepers plummeted from 121 to 82 for the same period. The $10 passes are typically used by out-of-towners who, for the first full season last year, were allowed to visit Greenwich beaches without being accompanied by a resident.

The change came after the state Supreme Court declared the town's residents-only beach-access policy unconstitutional in July 2001. The ruling ended seven years of litigation between the town and Brenden Leydon, the Stamford lawyer denied access to Greenwich Point while jogging.

While Greenwich Point attendance rose last month, the number of beachgoers to visit Byram Park declined by 26 percent compared to April 2002. The park welcomed 8,431 visitors this year, compared to 11,365 last year. Gatekeepers did not validate a single daily pass at the park, whereas eight were used during the same period last year. April 14 marked the start of the beach season in Greenwich, which requires proof of residency from beachgoers or the purchase of a daily visitor's pass.

As Memorial Day and the first official day of summer approach, parks officials announced Thursday that they had processed 31,000 resident beach card applications this season and have 1,100 outstanding requests. "It's still going pretty strong," said June Davila, who the town hired in February to head its beach card office. Davila estimated it would take her office two weeks to process each new beach card application. To obtain a beach pass and accompanying parking sticker from the town, beachgoers must supply the parks department with proof of residency and a copy of a current vehicle registration showing their car is on the Greenwich tax rolls. One application can be used for all family members.

The town has raised the price of beach cards for those 14 and over, which will be required through mid-November, from $20 to $22. The cards cost $5 for children ages 5 to 13 and are free for seniors and toddlers. Residents whose vehicles are not registered in town can purchase seasonal parking stickers for $100 each or pay the daily $20 parking rate charged to out-of-towners.

Nonresidents must visit Town Hall or the Greenwich Civic Center to buy daily passes and parking stickers, the cost of which is the same as last year.

NOT-SO-NEW-NEWS FLASH...FIRST SELECTMAN OF GREENWICH NOT RE-ELECTED NOVEMBER 6, 2001...BOARD OF SELECTMEN DEMOCRAT MAJORITY; policy continued next year because...no big influx of non-Greenwich people! Link HERE to how beaches in separate towns are organized, post-Greenwich ruling...NOTE: local election of 2003 won by Republicans, new First Selectman in Greenwich, in majority on Board of Selectmen. Re-elected in 2005.

Housing authority to take down clotheslines at Quarry Knoll I
Greenwich TIME
Frank MacEachern, Staff Writer
Published: 09:55 p.m., Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The clothesline dispute at Quarry Knoll I may be wrung out. Residents were notified Wednesday that the handful of clotheslines at the senior citizens complex will be removed Thursday. Unlike last year when residents opposed the Greenwich Housing Authority removing the clotheslines, this time the residents requested they be taken down, said Anthony Johnson, the housing authority's executive director.

"It was the residents who wanted them down. Joan Yankowski (president of the residents council) came to our board meeting and asked us to take it down," he said. "I think some residents think it is unsightly and dangerous."

According to the notice to Quarry Knoll residents, the vote in favor of removing the clotheslines occurred at a residents' meeting Oct. 27, last year. Johnson said it only came to the housing authority's notice last week and they acted upon the request. Yankowski couldn't be reached Wednesday to respond why there was a 10-month gap between the vote and the request to the commissioners.

One resident who agrees with the move is Sandy Stracuzzi, 79, a 13-year resident at Quarry Knoll I. Pointing to a clothesline near him, one that he rarely used, Stracuzzi said they are unsightly.

"They have not been taken care of and I think they are an eyesore," he said.

He prefers to use a washer and dryer in a community room at the complex. Controversy erupted last year after a number of residents complained about the housing authority's attempt to remove them. At the time the authority said they were unsightly and posed a potential threat for a lawsuit. The authority feared someone would go running through the senior complex at night and become entangled in a clothesline.

Clothesline proponents couldn't be reached or declined to comment Wednesday. The affair attracted national attention as environmentalists said clotheslines help to reduce energy consumption.

George, 71, and Kiruba Lall, 71, said they use an "umbrella" type clothesline behind their unit for items that they don't want to put through a dryer. Neither of them see the clotheslines as unsightly but said they have no power over whether they should remain.

"This is not my property," Kiruba Lall said. "They (the housing authority) are the landlords they can make any changes they want to."

Quarry Knoll I is a 50-unit complex of bungalows built in 1962 and subsidized through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Adjacent Quarry Knoll II is a 40-unit complex built in 1980 with state financing. Johnson said Quarry Knoll I is the only one of the public housing complexes in town, including nearby Wilbur Peck and Armstrong Court in the western section of town, that has allowed clotheslines.

Referred to Committee on Energy and Technology

Introduced by: REP. JOHNSON, 49th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING THE RIGHT TO DRY.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended as follows: (a) For the purposes of this section, "governing body" means any municipality, political subdivision of the state, fire district, sewer district, village, beach or improvement association or any other district or association or any condominium or cooperative association; and "direct solar energy" means direct sunlight or ambient outside air warmed by sunlight.

(b) No governing body may impose an ordinance, regulation or other restriction prohibiting the drying of clothes using direct solar energy through the use of clotheslines, drying racks or other apparatus in any residential setting.

(c) No deed restrictions, covenants, landlord-tenant agreements, private contracts or similar binding agreements running with the land shall prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting, the drying of clothes using direct solar energy through the use of clotheslines, drying racks or other apparatus in any residential setting, provided such clotheslines, drying racks or other apparatus do not affect public safety, including, but not limited to, hampering access to public buildings or impeding rapid emergency egress.

(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c) of this section, a governing body may prohibit the drying of clothes using direct solar energy through the use of clotheslines, drying racks or other apparatus in any residential setting if (1) nonpermanent alternatives, such as folding racks, would provide the same drying service as permanent installations of clotheslines and supporting structures; (2) functionally equivalent alternate drying facilities, such as indoor drying rooms, are available, provided said facilities do not rely on the use of electricity or fossil fuels specifically for drying; or (3) such prohibitions incorporate aesthetic considerations, provided such restrictions do not substantially interfere with access to direct solar energy for drying purposes.

Statement of Purpose: