WELCOME GUEST  |  LOG IN
East Quogue, Corcoran, Real Estate, Hamptons
27east.com

Story - News

Feb 17, 2010 11:59 AMPublication: The Southampton Press

Southampton Village denies request for police records

Feb 17, 2010 11:59 AM

Southampton Village is withholding information on police officers’ secondary employment

that is being sought by The Press,

despite an opinion from a Freedom of Information Law expert that states the data must be released.

State law dictates that the identities of police officers who requested permits to allow them to take secondary employment—and whether or not those requests were approved by Southampton Village Police Chief William Wilson—must be released, according to an opinion from Robert J. Freeman, the executive director of the State Committee on Open Government. While the nature of the secondary employment must also be disclosed, the names of the employers may be withheld, the opinion states, to protect the officers.

Despite the ruling, village officials have cited numerous reasons for withholding the information, ranging from claims that it is protected by state civil rights laws and that the police union has threatened to sue if it is released, to concerns that someone might use the information to harass cops working second jobs.

The Press requested the secondary employment records—all requests, approvals and denials from 2006 through 2009—in January, after former Southampton Village police officer Chris Broich submitted the same request and was denied. Southampton Village Treasurer/Clerk Stephen Funsch also rejected the newspaper group’s request and appeal. In denying the appeal, Mr. Funsch said that secondary employment “requests and denials are considered personnel records, which are confidential and not to be released,” said that the police department and Southampton Village Patrolman’s Benevolent Association contend the information is protected by state civil rights law and cited threats made by the police union as reasons to refuse to produce the documents.

“The PBA has placed the village and the SVPD on notice that any release of this information will result in litigation against the SVPD and the village,” Mr. Funsch wrote.

But Mr. Freeman said the village’s reasons for refusing to release the data are not legally valid. “The police union doesn’t make the rules,” he said. “They’re always going to cite [the civil service law]. It’s their knee-jerk reaction, and it’s wrong.”

Calls placed to the Southampton Village Police Department for Sergeant David Dorchak, the president of the Southampton Village PBA, were not returned. Steven LoSquadro, an attorney for the PBA, also did not return calls for comment.

Mayor Mark Epley and Chief Wilson also said that Mr. Broich is one of the reasons they are refusing to release the information—both fear that Mr. Broich will use the information to annoy and badger police officers at their second jobs.

Mr. Broich, however, said that he has no plans to harass police officers working second jobs, regardless of Mr. Epley’s suspicions, and he noted that the denials of his requests for information made no mention of his behavior as a factor in the decisions. “How would I harass them?” he said. “Couldn’t I be arrested?”

Further, Chief Wilson, who maintains the secondary employment records at police headquarters, said that he cannot and will not release the information because it can impact decisions on officer promotions and pay raises. “Secondary employment requests, as long as I have worked here, have been maintained exclusively as a portion of an employee’s personnel work file, which is confidential,” said Chief Wilson, noting that there are about six police officers who have received approval for secondary employment.

The chief said he won’t give up the records without a fight—and a court order. He expects the matter to end up in court. “There are mechanisms in place for Broich or the media to get a court order to release the records, and we will, of course, abide by the court order,” Chief Wilson said. “But myself and my legal representation are allowed to make an argument that it’s an undue invasion of privacy.”

In the denial letters to both the newspaper group and Mr. Broich, Mr. Funsch cited New York State Civil Rights Law Section 50-a, which states that all personnel records used to evaluate performance for promotion or continued employment cannot be reviewed by the public, unless the police officer gives permission. Both letters also referred to the PBA threat. Only the denial letter to the newspaper group also claimed that the records were confidential personnel information.

The Press asked Mr. Freeman for an opinion in early February.

“In sum and consideration of the foregoing,” Mr. Freeman wrote at the conclusion of his opinion, “I believe that those portions of the records sought indicating the identities of those officers who have sought outside employment, the determination to grant or deny those requests, and the nature of the outside employment must be disclosed to comply with law.”

1  |  2  >>  

You've read 1 of 7 free articles this month.

Already a subscriber? Sign in

Get the order and establish precedent.
By RemembertheDucks (54), Eastport on Feb 18, 10 2:45 PM
i am a little confused... why are these files needed?
By dee (14), southampton on Feb 18, 10 3:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
Who cares???
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 18, 10 5:27 PM
Bayman1,

"Who cares?"

Perhaps the tax-paying and other residents (who pay property taxes indirectly) have a right to know the details of who is working for US, and how the Southampton Village PD is handling their officers' other jobs?

Plus how our tax dollars are being used?

They all work for US, and we deserve to know the details.

Kudos to The Press for seeking out The Truth!
By PBR (4880), Southampton on Feb 18, 10 8:10 PM
2 members liked this comment
PBR:
How do you equate " how our tax dollars are being used" to employment outside of there public duties? There is no correlation.
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 19, 10 10:14 AM
PBR,
Per NYS Law a cop can work off duty in most capacities.Licensed premises being prohibited.
Being the investigative journalist that you are, just what do you think would come to light if the info requested was produced?
Up until you read this headline, had you EVER questioned the employment of cops while "OFF DUTY"? And in the slight chance you had, what did you do about it?
By Terry (380), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 11:51 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By sjd (420), Westhampton Beach on Feb 18, 10 8:20 PM
Why do these SO-CALLED police forces HATE to TELL THE TRUTH
By sjd (420), Westhampton Beach on Feb 18, 10 8:20 PM
1 member liked this comment
Yes, civil service employees work for “us”, the public that they serve. However, we do not own them. All persons, whether public employees or not are protected by the United States Constitution. There is so much animus towards anyone who earns a living from tax funded organizations due to the state of the economy, and our frustration is certainly understandable. But let us not forget that it is the elected officials (past and present) who awarded the raises that put our municipalities in debt. Police ...more
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 18, 10 8:55 PM
1 member liked this comment
Great to read a real investigative piece by The Press. Stay on it. Kick it up the food chain. Get a judge to rule on it.
By chairmanoftheBORED (12), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 6:43 AM
1 member liked this comment
This is another example of Southampton Press trying to stir up the pot. Why do they care about these records?? They have no use for them and they just want to have something to report on. I'm sure if the records were available, the Press and Chris Broich would find something to complain about, even if nothing was wrong about the records. Chris Broich is trying to retaliate against the police dept. and wont accept the fact that he got fired because he screwed up! Its not that the Police force hate ...more
By courtesy (43), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 8:24 AM
still confused why these records are so important to the press... shame on the press for stirring the pot. there is no need for ANYONE to know what the police officers do on thier time off. It is our business what they do when they are on the job.
Chris Broich needs to get over it.
By dee (14), southampton on Feb 19, 10 8:41 AM
1 member liked this comment
Yes there is. Do you want cops moonlighting in bars as bouncers where the possibility of graft occurs for overlooking age requirements? I believe the NYC police require that secondary employment be reported and certain enterprises, like bars, are off limits.
By diogenes (57), westhampton on Feb 19, 10 11:04 AM
1 member liked this comment
They are prohibited by NYS law from working in a bar or any licensed establishment. Other than that, they are free to work while off duty.
By Terry (380), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 1:27 PM
Sounds like they all got something to hide, because if there is nothing to hide you would give the truth. But then again cops are for the most part are dishonest and use thier power and ego for the wrong reasons,,Just like the Mayor he uses his power in places it is not needed and I this from personal experience keep up the good reporting. look what the Independent did to East Hampton It's time to air the dirty laundry
By J. Totta (100), Sag Harbor on Feb 19, 10 8:55 AM
3 members liked this comment
how can you streotype all poice oficers like that. police officers do have a right to have personal lives. you know this from personal experiece (totta) well that says alot...
By dee (14), southampton on Feb 19, 10 9:09 AM
1 member liked this comment
If Bayman1 knows so much he would remember that SVPD has always allowed the police to work second jobs. Almost always it was to work the parties given by the summer people. So what.. it was always considered normal and a way to keep taxes down. After 100 years of precedent now some folks are complaining?
By summertime (589), summerfield fl on Feb 19, 10 9:09 AM
Hey, Bayman1 forgive me; my comment was directed to PBR who seems to be worried about his taxes.
By summertime (589), summerfield fl on Feb 19, 10 9:13 AM
isn't Broich the cop that got fired for being unstable mentally? I am confused as to why he would want the records.
By Bayman3142 (189), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 11:21 AM
B3142: "isn't Broich the cop that got fired for being unstable mentally?"

I think that's what they would have you believe. If you follow his blogspot at all, he's uncovered some pretty unsavory details about the hierarchy of the Southampton Village PD and the Village Board.

Remember, last I knew, his lawsuit was still in play, and the Village hadn't been able to make it go away.

But what's interesting here, and which most are missing, is that Chris Broich has made a lawful ...more
By Frank Wheeler (1802), Northampton on Feb 19, 10 12:10 PM
1 member liked this comment
Frank:
Read the article before you comment in the future. You are lost.
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 19, 10 1:54 PM
1 member liked this comment
There is no court order YET...but it could come to that if they continue with their refusals. I think they should research the law themselves before refusing a request like this. As stated in the article, the information that they can provide in this case is limited. Who applied for permission to work a second job and who was granted permission. The village may not provide information on where the officers are working or where they wanted to work.
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Feb 22, 10 3:55 PM
Yes, police officers should be able to work second jobs, within the parameters of the laws and regulations which govern this activity. As OUR employees, however, they should be required to disclose the details of the second jobs publicly, so that we can check up on them.

Second jobs? Fine by me. I have had my share through the years (although I am not in law enforcement just to be clear, in case you wondered!).

Confidentiality about the second jobs? No way -- we have a right, indeed ...more
By PBR (4880), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 12:38 PM
PBR blathers:

"As OUR employees, however, they should be required to disclose the details of the second jobs publicly, so that we can check up on them."

No, they are employees of the Village of Southampton, a legal entity, not YOU. Next time you get stopped for a traffic violation tell the cop that you "pay his salary and that he works for you" You'll make out just fine.

"So that WE can check up on them"? Come on , give us some details, please.

Tell me this, ...more
By Terry (380), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 1:33 PM
So that who can check on them and why??
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 19, 10 1:51 PM
First of all Mr. Wheeler, there is no court order, read the article before you comment, do not be factually incorrect.

Mr. Broich apparently filed a FOIL request which was denied, so then he went to the SH Press to act as his agent, and they too were denied. The Press then sought an opinion from the State of New York Committee on Open Government, who stated in their opinion certain portions of the requested files should be released. The Committee is not a “Court” nor can they issue “Court ...more
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 12:43 PM
Transparency makes for more confidence in the department.

To the extent The Press is stirring the pot, good. That is their job. I don't think they do enouph "stirring".
By RemembertheDucks (54), Eastport on Feb 19, 10 3:50 PM
1 member liked this comment
I guess they are covering each other back
By Bel (86), southampton on Feb 19, 10 5:11 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 11:15 PM
Now after a little ‘web browsing’ I read that Mr. Broich had appealed his termination from Village employment through the NYS Court system, and what do you know, last week the appeals court ruled in favor of the Village…a coincidence? I think not!

Let’s move on people.
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 19, 10 11:33 PM
1 member liked this comment
Hmmm I didn't see a mention of that in the Press...I wonder why.
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Feb 22, 10 4:06 PM
So, then every civil servant must provide this info. Know anyone who doesn't have a second job! Gotta make it while you can! Highway Dept, Sanitation, teachers, etc...Just stop, as long as everyone is doing their job...who really cares!
By winston03 (1), southampton on Feb 20, 10 7:10 AM
Regardless of Broich the rule of law must be abided by and the FOIL should be honored.
By North Sea Citizen (504), North Sea on Feb 20, 10 7:29 AM
2 members liked this comment
Sunshine is a most powerful disinfectant. The more people go on about how there is nothing to see here, and that we should just move on, the more concerned and skeptical people will become. They will wonder if there maybe isn't some sort of cover-up.

A persons motives for filing a FOIL do not matter. If the information is FOILable then it must be turned over.
By RemembertheDucks (54), Eastport on Feb 20, 10 9:34 AM
It seems like that is the question here.
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 20, 10 9:51 AM
The real investigation should be the "Press" "Media" looking into our Commander in Chief's birth records,school records and college records. Obama has refused to release any of the latter. THATS where the story is. The biggest fraud perpetuated on Americans. Wanting records released from our local policemen because we want to know what second jobs they are taking or applying for , come on folks WAKE UP!!!!!!
By gallerygirl (29), southampton on Feb 20, 10 9:35 AM
Your insane comments have NOTHING to do with this story.
By Terry (380), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 5:16 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By zaz (194), East Hampton on Feb 20, 10 9:31 PM
You are a very scary person...
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Feb 22, 10 4:05 PM
Its none of your business what they do on their own time. Being employed by the village makes them accountable to village officials, not you or any other resident.

In regards to our President,On Janurary 4th the United States Senate certified the election of Barack Obama. All it would have taken is for ONE Republican Senator to stand up challenging the election on this issue. Had this occured there would have been a full blown hearing on the matter before the election was certified. Not ...more
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Feb 22, 10 4:18 PM
I'm a little confused as to WHY the secondary employment of police officers should fall under the FOIL Act? It's not part of an investigation, and it has nothing to do with a civil matter in which the Press is involved. FOIL was put in place so that people who are seeking civil action would have access to criminal records that involved them, and so that active investigations could be properly reported by the media. Personally, I don't see how finding out if an officer mows lawns when he is off duty ...more
By LocalMom (36), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 6:16 PM
Your re-definition of the Freedom of Information Act law is simply inaccurrate. Government records are the peoples records, and the people should have access to them barring some good reason.
By RemembertheDucks (54), Eastport on Feb 20, 10 8:00 PM
Actually, my "re-definition" is a simplified way of stating what the FOIA covers. However, your classification of personnel records as government records is way off-base. Government records would include field reports, witness statement and accident reports. People DO have access to them when there is a need. There is simply no real reason for the Press, or anyone else, to FOIA the information they are requesting. The officers are doing the job they are employed by the village to do - why must their ...more
By LocalMom (36), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 9:43 PM
well said local mom!!!
By dee (14), southampton on Feb 20, 10 7:34 PM
Actually, Ducks your definition is inaccurate. Not all governmental records are applicable under FOIL. Personnel records are specifically covered by NYS Civil Right Law 50-A. Yes, there is some sunshine that may be applied, but any records that has or may have an impact on an employee’s continued employment or that may result in disciplinary action are specifically restricted. FOIL also protects individuals from “undue invasion of privacy”. If you search the Civil Rights Law section, you may gain ...more
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 9:19 PM
Actually, K Aventi, I made no defenition. Your responce furthers my point however. Unless specifically protected, the people have access to government records.
By RemembertheDucks (54), Eastport on Feb 20, 10 9:44 PM
A fully disclosed FOIL request would demonstrate that the Police Captain owns and operates a Private Investigative Firm with the PBA Attorney. The name of the company is the Carlow Group LLP and the company is licensed by the New York State Department of State. Because the Southampton Village Police “Code of Conduct” forbids police officers from working for or doing business for private attorneys Chief Wilson would be obligated to prosecute the Captain for misconduct and incompetence. This might ...more
By PBA (14), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 9:27 PM
1 member liked this comment
Wow. I would expect those people PBA just called out to make a public statement.
By RemembertheDucks (54), Eastport on Feb 20, 10 9:59 PM
PBA:
Can you shed any light on what has been described as a spurious worker's compensation claim by Mr Broich? And do you know what the total cost for litigation initiated by him has been for southampton village?
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 21, 10 12:16 AM
$400,000.00 for the State Courts

The Village is insured my NYMIR and NYMIR hires Devitt Spellman to represent them in Federal Court. The insurance policy pays up to $1,000,000 per occurrence.
By PBA (14), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 10:55 AM
Thank you, that answers the second part of my question. How about the first part?
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 21, 10 11:42 AM
I would like to know what exactly was ‘inappropriate or duplicate’ in my post that was removed. This conversation string is in reference to the dissemination of governmental records and every observation that I made or reported on is readily available through the internet or good old-fashioned paper trail search.

Struck a nerve perhaps?
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 9:30 PM
Mr. Broich, I find it more than mildly amusing that you would use the title “PBA” for your post…
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 9:36 PM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By taxraven (26), Southampton on Feb 20, 10 10:05 PM
1 member liked this comment
Bayman, I will shed some light on the second part of your question because I seriously doubt ‘PBA’ will. He has filed a false workers compensation claim that is being investigated by NYS. The workers compensation claim is the first step in attempting to defraud the State into providing him with a tax-free disability pension. He seeks this action due to the fact that he forfeited his pension when he was terminated, and just last week the door was officially closed on his case as the NYS Court of ...more
By taxraven (26), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 12:39 PM
Not true; The State Investigation for WC Fraud has to to with the Chief Playing Deck Hockey at SYS, sustaining a back injury during play and claiming a work related injury that entailed 3 moths full pay after surgery.

The highest court in NYS is the NYS Court of Appeals in Albany. This is the next stop in State Court for the unlawful termination proceedings. This is the final stop. The "door" is open.

The Federal Action allows the employee to go outside the four corners of the ...more
By PBA (14), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 1:06 PM
1 member liked this comment
Since this article is about the Freedom of Information Law I encourage all readers of these posts to FOIL for any of this information. It's all ther for the reading.
By taxraven (26), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 12:42 PM
Thank you PBA and taxraven for your responses.
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 21, 10 1:26 PM
PBA

Is Broich seeking a workers comp claim or disability retirement, yes or no???

Did the Appeales Court rule in the Village's favor or not???

Deflection???
By taxraven (26), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 1:26 PM
PBA says,

Det. Lamison blah balh blah
Captain blah blah blah
Mayor blah blah blah
Hearing Officer blah blah blah
Chief blah blah blah

They are all out to get me, voices in your head getting louder?
By taxraven (26), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 1:30 PM
Mr. Broich is doing a service by exposing possible corruption. It also sounds to me like he got a raw deal by the Town and I hope he is vindicated.

Best wishes to you Mr. Broich.
By PBA 2 (1), RYE on Feb 21, 10 1:56 PM
He was employed by the village, not the town and you are hearing only HIS version of the events.
By Terry (380), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 4:10 PM

When the Police, Village Management, and certain commenters all refuse to reveal the truth, regardless of whether they are required by law as they clearly are under FOIL, it is obvious they are trying to keep something inherently rotten from public view.

Pay no mind to the cops and their relations constantly commenting to prevent any sunshine to shed light on their many questionable practices they are trying to keep from view. They are protecting their sweet turf they have squeezed ...more
By Common Sense (56), Southampton on Feb 21, 10 5:58 PM
Interesting point Common Sense. What "sweet turf' and which "organized institutions" are you referring to?
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 22, 10 9:07 AM
This comment has been removed because it is a duplicate, off-topic or contains inappropriate content.
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 22, 10 10:00 AM
The SVPD brass should release the information to put a stop to this tempest, here is the law section they are citing. Seems to apply.

NYS Civil Rights Law
S 50-a. Personnel records of police officers, firefighters and
Correction officers. 1. All personnel records, used to evaluate
Performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control
of any police agency or department of the state or any political
subdivision thereof including authorities or ...more
By K Aventi (33), Southampton on Feb 22, 10 10:00 AM
K Aventi:
What tempest?
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 23, 10 8:00 AM
I think the village is making things worse by not releasing the records. All they have to do is show which offers requested permission to work a second job, and if they were approved or not. They are not required to provide information on where these officers wanted to work or are working. So give the man what he wants. I also think the press should stop aiding Mr. Broich his Count of Monte Cristo like vendetta against the police department by printing articles like this.
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Feb 22, 10 10:21 AM
Its going to take some time for Wilson to get his cronies together to fill out some post dated requests. Is it really 2nd employment if the business is being run out of Police Headquarters?
By DP377k (19), Southampton on Feb 22, 10 11:48 AM
IS IT TRUE THAT THE VILLAGE PD IS THE MOST CORRUPT IN THE COUNTRY?
By canuce (4), southampton on Feb 22, 10 1:26 PM
I seriously doubt it.
By pstevens (406), Wilmington on Feb 22, 10 3:50 PM
Bottom line:

The Press will prevail in its request for a FOIL release of the documents regarding second jobs held by all Village PD officers (including the Captain mentioned above and Chief).

The Village and Chief Wilson can fight this all they want, thereby costing us more wasted tax money. That is their choice.

Reminder -- the FOIL request is VERY limited.

The documents sought should see the light of day IMO.

PS -- If the Village's refusal to release ...more
By PBR (4880), Southampton on Feb 22, 10 2:03 PM
Why would the Chief care about wasting tax payer money? He doesn't live in the Village!
By DP377k (19), Southampton on Feb 22, 10 2:14 PM
1 member liked this comment
soooo, let me get this straight. We are talking about public servants, who get paid from our tax dollars and refuse to answer to us?? Corruption??? How can a police captain and the PBA attorney own a security business together?? And you are going to tell me that this union and police department is not corrupt?
By jmilk630 (3), southampton on Feb 22, 10 9:19 PM
I don't understand why a FOIL request for telephone records to a private home that presumably is not the subject of any investigation would be denied.

RememberTheDucks has the concept of FOIL correct.

Anybody who has followed the events that have occurred since Mr. Broich was terminated would surely know something is amiss. You just can't make this stuff up.

Weren't there photos of a certain police officer working at the Hampton Classic while he was supposed to be on ...more
By diy_guy (101), Southampton on Feb 23, 10 6:42 PM
I will take the reins and call him a liar flat out. All of his claims and accusations were investigated by the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office and the New York State Commission of Investigation, as was reported by the Press. All issues were either dismissed or were satisfactorily addressed by the Village. (See the prior articles in the search bar)

Ask the minority community if he is a liar.
By taxraven (26), Southampton on Feb 23, 10 9:23 PM
Southampton detective with private security company fined $37K
Full story: Newsday

A Southampton Village Police detective was fined $37,000 by the New York Department of State for operating an unlicensed private security company and hiring unlicensed guards, according to state department ...
By jmilk630 (3), southampton on Feb 24, 10 8:54 AM
Newsday article was from 2007, correct?
By PBR (4880), Southampton on Feb 24, 10 4:36 PM
yes, an issue which was not dimissed or satisfactorily addressed by the Village.
By jmilk630 (3), southampton on Feb 25, 10 10:20 AM
Mr. Broich's credibility is not the issue here.

The Press (and we the taxpaying public also by the way) has a right to see the documents requested.

There is no legitimate governmental interest (or contractual either) in denying disclosure of the requested -- narrowly limited -- items.
By PBR (4880), Southampton on Feb 23, 10 9:50 PM
PBR:
If you are so sure about your position, and it seems you are, then you should articulate that in a lawsuit, that is what the court's are for.
By Bayman1 (297), Sag Harbor on Feb 24, 10 1:30 PM
See new article at link above.
By PBR (4880), Southampton on Feb 26, 10 12:15 PM
SHV has a video of the trustees work session from February 23 posted on their website, www.southamptonvillage.org. There is about a half-hour of discussion about the FOIL request, pretty entertaining. Starts about half way through meeting.
By taxraven (26), Southampton on Feb 26, 10 9:25 PM
New article -- see link above.
By PBR (4880), Southampton on Mar 3, 10 6:44 PM