FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
James M. Wright,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 88-89
Lisbon Board of Selectmen
and Lisbon First Selectman,
Respondents June
22, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 3, 1988, at which time the complainant 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. It is found
that the complainant sent the Commission a letter of complaint dated March 4,
1988, along with certain supporting documents.
The supporting documents were filed with the Commission on March 8,
1988.
3. It is found
that the complainant's letter of complaint was lost and that the complainant
sent the Commission a photocopy of the carbon copy of his letter dated March 4,
1988, which photocopy was filed with the Commission on April 4, 1988.
4. It is
concluded, therefore, that the Commission properly has jurisdiction over the
matter.
5. Although the
complainant is a member of the respondent board, he was unable to attend its
special meeting of February 29, 1988.
6. The
complainant alleges that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information
Act:
a. by taking up non-agenda items at the
meeting of February 29, 1988;
b. by not entering into the record of the
February 29, 1988, meeting his letter explaining his absence from the meeting;
c. and by the frequency with which the
respondent first selectman calls special meetings.
Docket #FIC 88-89 Page
Two
7. At the hearing
the respondents admitted they had taken up non-agenda items. They also moved to have the remainder of the
complaint dismissed, claiming that the Freedom of Information Act does not
address the matters described in paragraphs 6b and c, above.
8. The Commission
hereby grants the respondents motion and dismisses the complaint as to the
matters described in paragraphs 6b and c, above, as the Freedom of Information
Act does not proscribe such actions.
9. It is
concluded that the respondents violated §1-21(a), G.S., by taking up non-agenda
items at their meeting.
10. It is also
found that the respondents are attending an educational workshop on the Freedom
of Information Act, given by one of the Commission's assistant general counsel,
on May 25, 1988.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §1-21(a), G.S., and
confine each special meeting to items on the agenda.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of June 22, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission