FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Bernard Lavey and Hamden
Taxpayers Association,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 87-369
Councilman Arthur E. Moan,
Jr. and Hamden Legislative Council,
Respondents April
13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 28, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondents
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following
facts are found:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated December 10, 1987, and filed with the Commission on December 14, 1987,
the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that at their special
meeting of December 7, 1987, the respondents took up an item not on the
agenda. The complainants also requested
the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondents.
3. The
respondents claim that the item in question was
properly on the agenda. At the hearing the respondents moved for
dismissal of the complaint and requested the imposition of a civil penalty
against the complainants for bringing a frivolous complaint.
4. It is found
that, among other items, an amendment to the special meeting's agenda listed:
"TRANSFER OF FUNDS - MAYOR'S OFFICE - $7500.
(Prof/Tech Svcx) FROM E & C"
5. It is found
that when the respondent council considered this item, the respondent
councilman referred to remarks made by the complainant Mr. Lavey during a
public forum that took place before the special meeting in question. The councilman then
Docket #FIC 87-369 Page
Two
read a letter he had mailed
to Mr. Lavey, which asked for clarification of Mr. Lavey's status in the
complainant taxpayer association and information on the organizational
structure and finances of the association.
6. It is found
that the respondent councilman's remarks were within the context of the listed
agenda item and the complainants' stated position on it.
7. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondents only took up items on the agenda and
did not violate §1-21(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The complaint
is hereby dismissed.
2. Nonetheless,
the Commission is concerned about certain practices of the respondent council
that were not the subject of this complaint but became known to the Commission
during the evidentiary hearing. The
Commission reminds the respondent that each public forum it holds before a
meeting is a proceeding of the agency and constitutes a meeting that requires
notice, an agenda and minutes.
3. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty against any party.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of April 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission