FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Margaret M. Cusick FINAL DECISION
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-317
Norfolk Board of Assessors
Respondent March 28, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 16, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated August 7, 1989, the complainant alleged that the respondent held unnoticed secret meetings on September 2, 1988, and on September 13, 1988, for which neither agendas nor minutes were filed.
3. The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complainant had notice of the meetings concerning adoption of the schedule of land values.
4. It is found that the complainant was not aware of the unnoticed meetings at which the schedule of values was adopted until July ll, 1989, when she received a copy of an October 4, 1988 letter concerning the assessment schedule for the 1988 grand list.
5. It is found that July ll, 1989, was the first time the complainant had notice in fact that meetings had been held on September 2, 1988, and September 13, 1988.
6. The motion to dismiss is denied because the Commission has jurisdiction over this complaint pursuant to 1-21i(b).
Docket #FIC 89-317 Page 2
7. It is found that on September 2, 1988, and September 13, 1988, the respondent held unnoticed meetings in the assessors' office in order to adopt a new assessment schedule for the 1988 grand list. The respondent had no agendas, and filed no minutes of the meetings.
6. It is found that by letter dated October 4, 1988, the respondent notified the Board of Selectmen that it had adopted a new assessment schedule.
8. The respondent claimed that the September 2, 1988 and September 13, 1988 gatherings were not meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
9. The respondent claims that its practice in adopting rate schedules administratively during regular office hours is customary for assessors in Connecticut.
10. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that assessors in the state act administratively when they adopt new rate schedules.
11. It is found that the respondent treated its actions establishing the new rate schedules differently from other day-to-day administrative decisions, because it formalized the new rate schedules with a letter on October 4, 1988 to the Board of Selectmen.
12. It is found that the October 4, 1988 letter had a content similar to minutes stating who was present at the meeting and setting forth the new rate schedule.
13. It is concluded that the decision of the respondent adopting the new rate schedule was qualitatively different from the day-to-day administrative decisions it makes concerning the value of specifically identified properties, because the rate schedule provides the framework work for the assessments of all taxable properties.
14. It is further concluded that the September 2, 1988 and September 13, 1988 meetings of the respondent were special meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b) and 1-21, G.S.
15. It is concluded further that the respondent violated 1-18a(b) and 1-21, G.S. by failing to provide notice and minutes of its meetings on September 2, 1988, and September 13, 1988.
16. The complainant has requested that the action of the respondent adopting the rate schedules be declared null and void.
Docket #FIC 89-317 Page 3
17. It is found that rate schedule adopted in September 1988 became the basis for the property assessments in Norfolk.
18. It is found that in February, 1989, the complainant received notice from the Board of Assessors of the revaluation of her property.
19. It is found that on March 16, 1989, the complainant appealed her property assessment to the Norfolk Board of Tax Review.
20. It is found that it is not appropriate under the facts of this case that the action of the respondent be declared null and void.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall henceforth comply with 1-21, G.S.
2. The respondent shall post a copy of this Final Decision in the town hall on a public bulletin board for 30 days.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 28, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-317 Page 4
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
MARGARET M. CUSICK
c/o David M. Cusick, Esq.
682 Main Street
Winsted, CT 06098
NORFOLK BOARD OF ASSESSORS
c/o H. James Stedronsky, Esq.
Ells, Quinlan & Robinson
53 Park Place
P.O. Box 589
Winsted, CT 06098
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission