FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Charles Dixon
and the Waterbury Republican American,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-100
Selectmen of the
Town of Salisbury,
Respondent July 1, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 1, 1986, at which time it was continued to May 27,
1986. On May 27, 1986 the complainants
and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on
the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On
March 31, 1986 a group of architects addressed a gathering of the three members
of the respondent and a group of approximately 20 townspeople regarding plans
for a new town hall. The respondent
provided no notice of the gathering.
3. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 11, 1986 the
complainants alleged that the March 31, 1986 gathering was a meeting within the
meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S. and that the failure to provide notice of the
meeting violated 1-21(a), G.S.
4. It
is found that decisions regarding the construction of the new town hall are
made exclusively by the respondent.
5. At
the March 31, 1986 gathering members of the public had the opportunity to
address the architects regarding proposals for the new town hall. A previously-held public hearing before the
Historic District Commission on the same topic had been characterized by
unpleasant exchanges and by the domination of the discussion by a few
individuals.
6. It
is found that the March 31, 1986 discussion was organized by the first
selectman to allow a limited number of individuals the opportunity to address
the architects without competition from more vociferous members of the public.
Docket #FIC
86-100 Page Two
7. The
respondent claims that none of its members participated in the discussion, that
its members did not even sit together and that, in fact, the gathering was an
assembly of members of the public at which the members of the respondent were
in attendance.
8. It
is found, however, that the March 31, 1986 gathering was organized to allow the
respondent to gain information for its use in the making of decisions regarding
the new town hall.
9. It
is concluded that the March 31, 1986 gathering of the three members of the
respondent, members of the public and architects to discuss the construction of
a new town hall was communication to a quorum of a multimember public agency,
in person, to discuss a matter over which the public agency has supervision,
control, jurisdiction or advisory power and that such gathering was, therefore,
a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
10. It
is further concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S. when it
failed to provide public notice of the March 31, 1986 gathering.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the requirements of
1-21(a), G.S. regarding the public's right to access to meetings of public
agencies.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 25, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission