FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Charles W. Cobb,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-441
Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of New Britain,
Respondent May 9, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 2, 1990, at which time the complainant 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 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 filed with this Commission on November 28, 1989, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the FOI Act when it convened in executive session at its special meeting of October 23, 1989 in the following ways: a) the respondent considered and acted upon matters not specified in the notice of the meeting; b) the respondent discussed the performance of the complainant without providing him with prior notice or the right to be present and require the discussion to be held at an open meeting; and c) no record of votes was reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours nor were minutes of the meeting made available for public inspection within seven days.
3. It is found that the complainant in fact learned that the respondent discussed the complainant's employment in the October 23, 1989 executive session through newspaper articles he read on October 23 and 24, 1989.
4. The complainant argues that the newspaper notice identified in paragraph 3, above, does not constitute proper legal notice to him from the respondent, and accordingly his complaint was filed within 30 days from November 7, 1989, the time he received the minutes of this "secret or unnoticed" meeting.
Docket #FIC 89-441 Page 2
5. The Commission notes, however, that the issue concerning whether the respondent gave the complainant proper notice of its intention to discuss him in executive session and the issue of when the complainant had notice in fact of the respondent's intention are two separate and distinct issues.
6. It is concluded that the complainant had notice in fact on October 23, 1989 of the meeting, and that the complainant's failure to file his appeal within 30 days of that time deprives this Commission of jurisdiction over the issues identified in paragraphs 2a and 2b, above.
7. It is found that on a daily basis from October 24, 1989 to November 1, 1989, the complainant requested access to the respondent's record of votes and minutes of its October 23, 1989 meeting.
8. It is found that the minutes of the October 23, 1989 meeting were unavailable to the complainant prior to November 7, 1989.
9. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S. by failing to make minutes available for public inspection within seven days of the October 23, 1989 session.
10. It is also found that after the executive session portion of its October 23, 1989 meeting, the respondent voted unanimously to investigate complaints against the respondent.
11. It is found that a record of votes was not made available to the complainant within forty-eight hours.
12. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S. by failing to make the record of votes available to the complainant within forty-eight hours.
13. It is found that under the facts of this case, which facts are seriously limited due to the Commission's lack of jurisdiction over otherwise key issues, the imposition of civil penalties is inappropriate.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the open meeting requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 9, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-441 Page 3
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:
CHARLES W. COBB
312 Hart Street
New Britain, CT 06052
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF NEW BRITAIN
c/o Mark K. Ostrowski, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin
799 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission