FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert H.
Estabrook and the Lakeville Journal
Complainants
against Docket # FIC 86-118
The Building
Committee of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of Salisbury and the Board of
Selectmen of the Town of Salisbury
Respondents September 24, 1986
The above
captioned matter was scheduled for hearing June 17, 1986 at which time both
parties appeared and presented evidence and argument on the complaint. Prior to the taking of evidence in this
matter, the hearing officer ordered that the board of selectmen be made a party
to the complaint.
1. Pursuant
to P.A. 86-408 the complainant gave notice on June 17, 1986 to the Freedom of
Information Commission and to the other parties to the above-captioned appeal
before the Freedom of Information Commission of their intent to continue this
appeal.
2. The
building committee, named as respondent (hereinafter, committee), claimed it
was not a party to the complaint because it was not a public agency within the
meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
3. The
committee is an advisory group which was invited by the first selectman to
advise the board of selectmen concerning its choice of an architect for a new
town hall.
4. The
committee consisted of several architects, and two other town residents who had
relevant experience.
5. The
committee was selected and created by the first selectman and held its first
meeting with the respondent board of selectmen in mid-September.
6. Thereafter,
the committee met on several occasions at the request of the first selectman
with the respondent board of selectmen to discuss matters relating to the
selection of an architect.
Docket # FIC
86-118 page two
7. Most
of the meetings were not noticed and were not attended by the public.
8. Neither
the committee nor the board of selectmen kept minutes.
9. The
committee claims that it is not a public agency because its members underwent
no formal appointment procedures and because the committee possessed no final
decision making powers.
10. It
is found that 1-18a(a), G.S. does not distinguish between committees which
are appointed by formalized procedures and those which are created to meet
temporary needs; nor does the statute make the status of the committee as a
public agency dependent on the decision-making power which has been allocated
to the committee.
11. It
is found that the respondent committee is a public agency within the meaning of
1-18a(a), G.S.
12. The
complainant alleged that the respondent committee and the respondent board of
selectmen met illegally on April 25, 1986, after a town meeting to consider
architectural plans for the town hall.
13. During
the town meeting, the first selectman announced that a meeting of the building
committee would occur after the town meeting.
14. After
the town meeting, the building committee and the first selectman began a
discussion at the front of the church.
15. The
discussion took ten to fifteen minutes; the length of the discussion led two
reporters in the room to believe that a meeting was taking place.
16. Reporters
were told that the meeting was an informal meeting, and that they would be told
when the next meeting would be held.
Docket # FIC
86-118 page three
17. 1-18a(b),
G.S. provides that "'[m]eeting' shall not include: . . . communication
limited to notice of meetings of any public agency or the agendas
thereof."
18. It
is found that the respondent committee failed to prove that the discussion
which took place was limited to the notice of meetings, or of agendas.
19. It
is found, therefore, that the discussion which took place after the April 25,
1986 town meeting was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
The following order by the Commission
is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned
complaint.
1.
The respondent committee shall henceforth comply with the notice and
open meetings provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
2.
The complaint is dismissed as to the respondent board of selectmen.
3.
The violation found here, based upon the events taking place after the
April 25, 1986 town meeting, is largely technical. The evidence showed that, over several months, the respondent
selectmen and the respondent building committee conducted private discussions
concerning the choice of architect for the town hall. The public has a legitimate interest in the choice of an
architect. To discuss plans for the
building in private precludes residents from having any idea of what sort of
design the architects may be proposing.
Such a closed procedure also prevents the public from offering its views
to the building committee. The
Commission urges the respondents to strengthen their commitment to public access.
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