FD1988-447

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Mark Pazniokas and The Hartford Courant,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 88-447

Mayor's Commission on Crime, Board of Education and City Council of the City of Hartford,

Respondents June 28, 1989

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 20, 1988, at which time the parties appeared and presented evidence and argument on the complaint.

After consideration of the entire record the following facts are found.

1. It is found that the respondent Board of Education (Board, hereinafter) and the respondent city council (Council, hereinafter) are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a),G.S.

2. By letter of complaint received November 8, 1988, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the open meetings provisions of the Freedom of Information Act when they failed to conduct a retreat sponsored by the mayor's commission on crime in accordance with the notice, minutes and public access provisions of §§1-21 and 1-19(a),G.S.

3. It is found that the respondent mayor's commission on crime (MCC, hereinafter) held a retreat at the Simsbury Inn on October 28 to October 30, 1988.

4. The respondent MCC moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it had not received notice of the hearing on this complaint.

5. It is found that the Commission mailed notice to the MCC on December 6, 1988.

6. It is found that the respondent MCC failed to prove it had not received notice of the hearing.

Docket #FIC 88-447 Page 2

7. It is found further that counsel for the respondent MCC made no claim that he was unable to defend the client because of lack of notice.

8. It is concluded that the motion to dismiss for failure to provide notice should be denied for the reasons stated at paragraphs 5, 6, and 7.

9. The respondent MCC claims it is not a public agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

10. It is found that the respondent MCC is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S., for the following reasons:

(a) The membership of the respondent MCC is appointed by the mayor.

(b) The purpose of the respondent MCC is to advise the mayor, the council, and the city administration on how to decrease crime in Hartford.

(d) The city provided funds for the retreat of the MCC which is the subject of this complaint.

11. It is found that a quorum of the respondent Board and the respondent Council attended the October retreat in Simsbury.

12. It is found that the purpose of the retreat was to create a collaborative effort to address critical issues affecting the quality of life in Hartford, particularly in relation to the high level of crime.

13. It is found that no notice and no minutes of the three day retreat were filed as required by §§1-21 and 1-19(a), G.S.

14. It is found that the co-chairman of the respondent MCC, Nicholas R. Carbone, told the complainant Pazniokas to leave when he attempted to attend the substantive discussions which occurred on Sunday, October 30, 1988.

15. It is found that co-chairman Carbone told the complainant Pazniokas that probably the retreat was a public meeting subject to the Freedom of Information Act, but that he had to be pragmatic.

16. The respondents claim that the retreat was not a public meeting because its fundamental purpose was to encourage communication and develop trust. They argue that the presence of the public would frustrate this goal.

Docket #FIC 88-447 Page 3

17. It is concluded that the retreat was a meeting within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S., because it was a proceeding to discuss matters over which the public agencies in attendance have supervision, control or advisory power.

18. It is found that the respondents MCC, Board, and Council violated the open meetings notice and minutes provisions of §§1-21, and 1-19(a), G.S, by failing to provide notice, public access and minutes for the retreat.

19. It is found that further inquiry is necessary to determine if a civil penalty should be imposed upon any member of the respondents pursuant to §1-21i(b), G.S.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

1. Henceforth the respondents shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of §§1-19(a) and 1-21, G.S.

2. The co-chairman of the respondent MCC, Nicholas R. Carbone, is hereby ordered to appear before the Commission, at a date to be determined, to show cause why a civil penalty should not be imposed upon him pursuant to §1-21i(b), G.S.

PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

MARK PAZNIOKAS AND THE HARTFORD COURANT, c/o Ralph G. Elliot, Esquire, Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn, CityPlace - 35th Floor,

Hartford, CT 06103-3488

MAYOR'S COMMISSION ON CRIME, BOARD OF EDUCATION AND CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD, c/o Thomas R. Cox, Esquire,

Assistant Corporation Counsel, 550 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 1989.

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission