FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Lorraine Gawronski, Mabel Ouellette, and Ruth
Peralli,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-72
East Windsor Elderly Commission,
Respondent June
8, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on April 15, 1988, at which time the
complainants and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On February 22, 1988, the respondent held a
special meeting at the East Windsor Town Hall.
3. By letter of complaint dated February 24,
1988 and filed with the Commission on February 29, 1988, the complainants
alleged they were denied the right to attend the respondent's February 22, 1988
special meeting and were denied the right to speak at that meeting.
4. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent
moved to disqualify the Director of the East Windsor Senior Center as
representative for the complainants on the ground that her representation
constituted a conflict of interest with her employment by the respondent.
5. The Commission denied the respondent's
motion described in paragraph 4, above.
6. The respondent contends the complainants
were not denied the right to attend the February 22, 1988 special meeting
within the meaning of §1-21(a), G.S.
7. It is found that the respondent posted
notice of its February 22, 1988 special meeting, indicating that it would
conduct a "workshop to study and establish new policies.".
Docket #FIC 88-72 Page 2
8. It is found the respondent's February 22,
1988 special meeting convened at 7:10 p.m.
A quorum of the respondent was present at the meeting.
9. It is found the purpose of the respondent's
February 22, 1988 special meeting was to develop staff policies and procedures
for the East Windsor Senior Center. The
complainants are employees of the Center.
10. It is found the February 22, 1988 special
meeting constituted the convening of a quorum of a multi-member public agency
for the purpose of discussing a matter over which it has supervision, control,
jurisdiction or advisory power within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.
11. It therefore is
concluded the respondent's February 22, 1988 special meeting was a meeting
within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.
12. It is found the complainants arrived at the
Town Hall to attend the respondent's February 22, 1988 special meeting at
approximately 7:30 p.m.
13. It is found that upon their arrival, the
complainants found the door to the meeting room closed. The complainants knocked on the meeting room
door and were told by the chairman of the respondent that they could not attend
the meeting because it was a workshop.
14. It is found that approximately two to ten
minutes after being told they could not attend the meeting, the complainants
were informed by another member of the respondent that they could attend but
not speak at the meeting.
15. It is found that the complainants left the
Town Hall after being told they could attend the meeting because they felt
unwelcome.
16. It is found the respondent did not conduct
any substantive business during the time in which the complainants were kept
from the February 22, 1988 special meeting.
17. At the hearing, the respondent admitted that
it made a mistake by not initially permitting the complainants to attend its
February 22, 1988 special meeting and opened the meeting to the public when it
realized its error.
18. It is concluded that the complainants were
not denied the right to attend a public meeting within the meaning of §1-21(a),
G.S.
Docket #FIC 88-72 Page 3
19. The Commission lacks jurisdiction over the
portion of the complaint alleging the complainants were denied the right to
speak because there is no provision under the Freedom of Information Act
requiring a public agency to accommodate public comments at its meetings.
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. Although the Commission found that, under
the circumstances presented, the complainants were not denied access to the
meeting in question, it cautions the respondent to be mindful of such
occurrences, given the appearance of impropriety and to strengthen its
commitment to public access in the future.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of June 8, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission