A town should realize it has a serious problem when an attorney, well paid to provide legal advice on handling requests for public information, is doing such a poor job that a Freedom of Information Commission attorney takes the extraordinary step of saying the attorney needs more training.

But such is the case in Stonington where the town's latest attempt to block access to obviously public information so concerned FOI attorney Victor R. Perpetua that he suggested that not only should town officials receive educational training about the FOI Act, but town labor attorney Michael Satti needs to as well.

Mr. Perpetua served as the hearing officer in the FOI case involving a complaint filed by Day staff writer Joe Wojtas. Back in May, Mr. Wojtas appealed to the commission after Stonington refused to release a union grievance that Zoning Enforcement Officer Joe Larkin filed after the town cut his position to part-time. It is well established law in the state that such grievances are public records, yet Mr. Satti used some sham legal arguments to persuade town officials to block the release.

Mr. Satti's first line of argument for keeping the grievance secret was that Mr. Larkin "may have a privacy interest in the documents." Turns out, Mr. Larkin, when questioned during the appeal hearing, was only interested in pursuing his collective bargaining rights, not making any claims of privacy. This is not surprising since there was nothing private about his grievance. This was a public employee challenging the decision to cut his hours.

Mr. Perpetua concluded that needing an excuse to keep the grievance a closed record, the town solicited a privacy objection from Mr. Larkin, one that turned out not be genuine.

"The commission is disturbed by the respondents' solicitation and use of the employee's objection as a reason to withhold the grievance, when they had no reasonable belief that disclosure would legally constitute an invasion of privacy," wrote Mr. Perpetua in his decision.

At the hearing Mr. Satti abandoned his privacy argument, switching to the claim that the grievance was exempt as a record pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation. A little research by a first-year law student, however, would show the Appellate Court long ago conclusively determined that such grievances are not records involving strategy or negotiation and so not exempt for that reason.

No wonder Mr. Perpetua recommends FOI lessons for Mr. Satti.

"The commission assumes that the respondents' actions were guided by the advice of counsel, and therefore encourages, in the strongest possible terms, the participation of counsel in such an educational training session," he stated.

We expect the full commission, when it meets Feb. 22, to adopt the recommendation ordering the release of the grievance and the training.

At last check, Mr. Wojtas found Stonington had paid Mr. Satti $2,304 for his advice and work on the case, but that's a partial accounting, not yet including legal representation at the hearing itself.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. Acting on the Mr. Satti's advice, the town previously fought Mr. Wojtas when he sought the release of documents involving the threatening actions of a highway department employee, and the subsequent disciplinary actions taken against him. Ringing up $5,200 to represent the town in that case, Mr. Satti offered the same spurious "personal privacy" argument. The commission ordered the release of those documents in December.

We see no good reason for the town to keep wasting tax money to fight the release of public information. First Selectman Ed Haberek needs to recognize he has been getting bad legal advice.