Fair Rent Commission

REVISED DRAFT MINUTES FAIR RENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING (HYBRID) OF APRIL 10, 2024 Present: Commissioner/Chair Rakim Grant; Commissioner/Vice Chair Caitlin Duffy; Commissioner Kirk Hart (remote); Commissioner Robert Rosenthal; Commissioner Rob Kronenberger; Commissioner Sal Calvo; Commissioner Alagar Venkataswamy. Staff: Atty. Philip G. Kent, as outside counsel for the Commission Public: Atty. Darrell Fennell; Vincent Maruffi; Stacey (remote) 1. Call to Order: Commissioner / Chair Grant called the Meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. 2. Public Comment: Commissioner / Chair Grant called for public comment. Attorney Darrell Fennell presented research and comments concerning the issue of whether to have a statute of limitations within the FRC bylaws and procedures. He pointed out that the FRC statute and is directed at existing rent or proposed rent only and that remedies are prospective only such that a statute of limitations is unnecessary. He disagreed with a memorandum submitted by counsel to the FRC, which recognized that no FRC commission has a statute of limitations but proposed a potential amendment allowing dismissal for untimely complaints. 3. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Kronenberger made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the March 13, 2024 Regular Meeting. Vice Chair / Commissioner Duffy seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Correspondence Atty. Kent reported that emails specific to agenda items would be reported on later in the meeting. As to the Maruffi hearing, Atty. Kent reported that Atty. Gottlieb emailed to request continuance due to injury, which the Chair permitted. Atty. Kent also reported having responded to an email from Jay Borden concerning any maximum rent in CT. 5. New Business A. Discussion re additional revisions of Bylaws 1. Statute of Limitations issue Attorney Kent briefly responded to Atty. Fennell’s comments and reported further on the legal memorandum to the Commissioners concerning the recommendation to add a provision allowing dismissal for untimeliness. Discussion continued largely through Commissioners Rosenthal, Duffy and Venkataswamy and Attorney Kent to further analyze the issue. Commissioner Rosenthal made a MOTION to remove the statute of limitations section from the bylaws. Vice Chair / Commissioner Duffy seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Atty. Kent will revise the bylaws accordingly and repost to the City website. B. Discussion re various issues 1. Informing community re FRC – Mayor’s press release Atty. Kent reported on an email from Deputy General Counsel Kori Wisneski requesting comment for a press release. Comments were provided by Atty. Kent and Vice Chair Duffy. The press release is drafted and should be issued soon by the Mayor’s office. 2. Letter to Mayor re FRC suggestions Vice Chair Duffy reported that the letter is still being put together while the Commission determines what specific suggestions it may have. The Chair tabled the issue for a future meeting. 3. Other/General Chair Grant called for discussion of hearing procedures specifically concerning time limits for witnesses. Commissioner Rosenthal inquired about the flyer and Commissioner / Chair Grant will amend the flyer previously drafted for use in promoting knowledge of the existence of the FRC at events or otherwise. Commissioner Kronenberger suggested vetting the final flyer through General Counsel’s office, to which all agreed. Commissioner Rosenthal suggested a subcommittee for dealing with such documents and where to post them. Commissioner Kronenberger suggested the library and senior center. Commissioner / Chair Grant agreed to be on that subcommittee with Commissioner Rosenthal. As to time limits, Commissioner / Chair Grant suggested potentially limiting presentations to 15 minutes each side with closing arguments. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Kronenberger agreed that we need to find a way to run efficiently as a commission and to not treat this as a court. Commissioner Kronenberger wants hearings to get to the point. Commissioner / Chair Grant noted that we get bogged down in lengthy witnesses. Attorney Kent advised that circumstances may warrant extended time in some cases but that time limits would help. After subsequent discussion among the Commissioners, the Commissioners agreed that opening arguments would be 20 minutes (10 minutes each side), followed by 30 minutes for each party to put on witnesses / testimony, followed by 20 minutes of rebuttal (10 minutes each side), followed by 10 minutes of closing arguments (5 minutes each side), with 30 minutes of time for questions from the Commissioners. Under this rubric, total time for each hearing would be 2 hours not counting deliberations, unless extended. The Commissioners will employ this procedure and reevaluate as needed. Attorney Kent will create a form notice to parties to be issued with the initial notice of complaint for approval by General Counsel’s office and the Commission. Commissioner Salvo indicated as well that these new rules would not be applied to the existing Maruffi hearing. Commissioner Kronenberger made a Motion to adopt the preceding hearing rubric. Commissioner Calvo seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. C. Discussion of pending complaints, mediation, answer dates and scheduling Hearings 2  Atty. Kent reported that notice was issued on the Vincenzo complaint but no mediation has occurred. On the Moffett complaint, Notice issued March 28, 2024, which set an answer date of April 18, 2024. Atty. Kent reported that Trio, the management company, responded re the Moffett complaint and inquired about requiring amendments to the complaint and the parameters of mediation, among other related questions. Trio indicated not wishing to engage in the Commission’s informal mediation process and was notified the Commission may still require mediation prior to a hearing. Atty. Kent also reported that the Maruffi matter was continued upon request, to be followed by the Venkatswamy and Fennell matters, along with two others (Vicenzo and Moffett). There was brief discussion about a potential special meeting but none was set. Commissioner Rosenthal asked whether a commissioner who misses a meeting could still deliberate and rule on a case. Atty. Kent advised that doing so is unlikely to be appropriate given that the commissioner missed presentation of evidence and opportunity ask questions. In addition, Atty. Kent noted that the last hearing did not record due to technical issues, which further complicates review by a commissioner who missed a hearing. Atty. Fennell was recognized on the issue of whether there is a complete record of the Maruffi hearing as a result and advised that he is researching the issue. Atty. Kent suggested that the issue may become moot or that the parties may be able to agree on how to handle that issue but agreed more research was needed. Commissioner Kronenberger inquired whether the meeting has to be on Zoom or can it be taped. Atty. Kent will research or inquire on that issue. 6. Old Business A. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Maruffi complaint This matter was not taken up. Although the Maruffi case remains in progress, the hearing was continued at the request of landlord’s counsel, as stated above. B. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Venkataswamy complaint This matter was not taken up given that the Maruffi case remains in progress. C. Hearing / deliberations / decision re Fennell complaint This matter was not taken up given that the Maruffi case remains in progress. 7. Executive Session, if needed Not applicable. 8. Adjournment: Commissioner Kronenberger made a MOTION to adjourn, and Vice Chair / Commissioner Duffy seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 p.m. 3