FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Elsa Brenner,
Tim Quinson and The State Line Free Press
Complainants
against Docket # FIC 86-111
First Selectman
Charlotte H. Reid, Selectman George Bushnell, and Selectman George Kiefer, all
of The Board of Selectmen of the Town of Salisbury
Respondents September 24, 1986
The above
captioned matter was scheduled for hearing May 19, 1986 at which time it was
continued to June 19, 1986, when the parties appeared and presented evidence
and argument on the complaint.
1.
The respondent board is a public agency within the meaning of
1-18a(a), G.S.
2.
The respondent board moved to dismiss the complaint because the Freedom
of Information Commission failed to comply with the time limits required by
1-21i(b), G.S.
3.
An additional ground asserted in the motion to dismiss was that the
Freedom of Information Commission had failed to comply with the notice
requirement of 1-21i(b) which requires that the "commission shall serve
upon all parties by certified or registered mail, a copy of such notice
together with any other notice or order".
4.
The complaint was filed with the Commission on April 29, 1986.
5.
Notice of Hearing and the Order to Show Cause, accompanied by a copy of
the complaint, were mailed to the respondent board herein on or about May 7,
1986 by certified mail.
6.
The respondent board never picked up the envelope which was returned to
the Commission on May 24, 1986.
Docket # FIC
86-111 page two
7. Assuming
that the hearing was not held within the time limits required at 1-21i(b),
G.S., the complaint was validated when on June 19, 1986, pursuant to P.A.
86-408, the complainants gave notice to the Commission and the respondents that
they wished to continue this appeal.
8. The
motion to dismiss is denied, therefore, because any failure to comply with the
time limits has been corrected pursuant to P.A. 86-408, and because notice of
the complaint was sent to the respondent board as required by 1-21i(b),
G.S.
9. On
March 31, 1986 a group of architects addressed a gathering of the three members
of the respondent board and a group of approximately 20 townspeople regarding
plans for a new town hall. The
respondent board provided no notice of the gathering.
10. 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.
11. It
is found that decisions regarding the construction of the new town hall are
made by the respondent board.
12. 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 unsatisfactory to some
townspeople because they felt intimidated by the manner of certain speakers.
13. 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.
14. The
respondent board 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
board were in attendance.
Docket # FIC
86-111 page three
15. It
if found, however, that the March 31, 1986 gathering permitted the respondents
to gain information for their use in the making of decisions regarding the new
town hall.
16. It
is concluded that the March 31, 1986 gathering of the respondent board, 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 a gathering was, therefore, a meeting within the
meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
17. It
is further concluded that the respondent board 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 board 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 September 24, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission