FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Sebastian J. Aresco, Kevin
Earls and Middlefield Democratic Town Committee,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 88-155
First Selectman and Board of
Selectmen of the Town of Middlefield,
Respondents September
14, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on June 17, 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. On the evening
of April 12, 1988, the following people attended a gathering in the Middlefield
town administrative building: John
Augeri, James Blois, Geoffrey Colegrove, Dom Feretti, Joe Lombardo, John Lyman,
Len Mediavilla, Roy Smith, Frank St. John, Mike Timbro and Bill Wallett.
3. By letter
filed with the Commission on April 25, 1988, the complainants appealed to the
Commission, alleging the gathering was an unnoticed government meeting.
4. The
respondents claim that there was no selectmen's meeting since it was only by
chance that a quorum of the selectmen were present. The respondents also claim that there was no meeting of the
architect search committee because the committee does not have authority over
the matters discussed at that gathering.
5. It is found
that the first selectman, James Blois, asked the people listed in paragraph 2,
above, with the exception of John Augeri, to gather at the town administrative
building to brainstorm and generate ideas on future uses of the space in the
town administrative building and Center
School.
Docket #FIC 88-155 Page
Two
6. It is found
that how the space in the town administrative building and Center School is
used is a matter over which the respondent board of selectmen has supervision.
7. It is also
found that the ideas generated at this meeting helped determine which options
the respondent board presented at its meeting on April 26, 1988, to the town
political committees and citizens to obtain their opinions.
8. It is found
that the respondent board of selectmen has three members.
9. It is found
that the first selectman attended the entire gathering in question.
10. It is found
that the second selectman, John Augeri,
was in the town administrative building that evening to sign checks,
entered uninvited the room in which the gathering already had started, and
attended the gathering for a significant amount of time.
11. It is found,
therefore, that a quorum of the respondent board of selectmen assembled at the
gathering.
12. It is
concluded that the gathering constituted a meeting of the respondent board
within the meeting of §1-18a(b), G.S.
13. It is found
that the respondent board failed to file a notice of this meeting with the town
clerk.
14. Thus it is
concluded that the respondent board violated §1-21(a), G.S.
15. It is found
that the respondent board appointed an architect search committee to evaluate
architects and their proposals for the space and to make recommendations to the
respondent board.
16. Thus it is
found that how the space in the town administrative building and Center School
is used is a matter over which the committee has advisory power.
17. It is found
that the architect search committee has 6 members.
18. It is found
that 4 members of the committee attended the gathering.
19. It is found,
therefore, that a quorum of the committee assembled at the gathering.
Docket #88-155 Page
Three
20. It is
concluded that the gathering constituted a meeting of the committee within the
meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.
21. It is found that
the committee failed to file a notice of this meeting with the town clerk.
22. Thus it is
concluded that this advisory committee to the respondent board violated
§1-21(a), G.S.
23. It is found
that the complainants were unable to attend the meeting because they had no
notice of it.
24. It is
concluded that the respondents violated §1-21(a), G.S., by failing to hold the
meeting in public.
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.
2. The
respondents forthwith shall schedule an educational workshop on Freedom of
Information Act requirements to be given by a Commission staff attorney and to
take place no later than 60 days after the mailing of the notice of the final
decision in this matter.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of September 14, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission