FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Trenton E. Wright, Jr.,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 90-50
First Selectman, Town of Windham,
Respondent August 8, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 24, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated with Docket ##'s FIC 90-48, FIC 90-49 and FIC 90-58 for hearing.
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. The complainant appealed to the Commission by letter filed February 8, 1990, alleging that the respondent held an unnoticed meeting via electronic equipment on January 18, 1990. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondent.
3. The respondent claims that as the newly-elected first selectman he was not aware that he could not take a poll by telephone, that now he is obtaining a speaker phone, and that in the interim he will have several staff members make such telephone calls in his stead.
4. It is found that the respondent attended a workshop on Freedom of Information Act requirements lead by a Commission staff attorney on January 16, 1990.
5. It is found that on January 17 and 18, 1990, the respondent telephoned all eleven members of the Windham board of selectmen and asked them how they would vote if asked to give a vote of confidence for the town attorney.
6. It is found that this topic is one over which the board of selectmen has supervisory and advisory power.
Docket #FIC 90-50 Page Two
7. It is concluded that this telephone poll constituted a meeting of the Windham board of selectmen, as defined by 1-18a(b), G.S.
8. It is found that the respondent did not file a notice, agenda, or minutes for this meeting, or otherwise provide for public access to it.
9. Thus it is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by holding a secret, unnoticed meeting.
The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the entire record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with 1-21(a), G.S.
2. The Commission notes that having his staff poll the selectmen by telephone will not prevent the respondent from violating the spirit and letter of 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 8, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-50 Page Three
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:
TRENTON E. WRIGHT, JR.
232 Mansfield Avenue
Willimantic, CT 06226
FIRST SELECTMAN, TOWN OF WINDHAM
c/o Nicholas F. Kepple, Esq.
P.O. Box 1591
New London, CT 06320
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission