FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Stanley F. Soby

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-367

 

Colchester Board of Education

 

                        Respondent                  April 10, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 28, 1991, 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 of complaint dated September 25, 1990 and filed on September 26, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent improperly adjourned    its September 24, 1990 special meeting.

 

            3.  More specifically, the complainant alleges that the respondent adjourned its meeting without allowing citizens' comments, which was listed on the agenda of the meeting, and that this action violated the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            4.  In addition, the complainant alleges that the respondent improperly discussed whether to adjourn, without citizens' comments, in an executive session, during the September 24, 1990 meeting.

 

Docket #FIC 90-367                           Page 2

 

            5.  It is concluded that there is nothing in the Freedom of Information Act which requires an agency to address all of the items listed on its agenda, or notice of meeting, prior to adjournment.

 

            6.  It is also found that the respondent convened in executive session during its September 24, 1990 special meeting for the purpose of discussing a written legal opinion from its counsel, privileged by the attorney client relationship.

 

            7.  It is concluded that the respondent was permitted to discuss the privileged written communication from its counsel by virtue of 1-18a(e)(5) and 1-21g(b), G.S.

 

            8.  It is also found that the complainant failed to present evidence to support the allegation that the respondent discussed the issue of whether to adjourn, without citizens' comments, during the course of the executive session.

 

            9.  It is concluded therefore, that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act with respect to the specific allegations made by the complainant.

 

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

 

            1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

            2.  The Commission notes that, although the actions taken to adjourn the respondent's September 24, 1990 special meeting did not violate the letter of the law, as a matter of common courtesy to the members of the public who came to the meeting in reliance on the agenda item, that public comments should have been permitted prior to adjournment.

 

            3.  Although the complainant did not address this subject in his complaint, in light of the testimony of the respondent's witnesses concerning the votes to adjourn, the Commission wishes to remind the respondent that the Freedom of Information Act requires public agencies to keep an accurate record of their  proceedings, including how each agency member voted on each issue before the agency.

 

Docket #FIC 90-367                           Page 3

 

            4.  Again, although the complainant did not address this subject in his complaint, after review of the minutes of the September 24, 1990 special meeting, the Commission notes that the minutes do not indicate the names of the persons who were in attendance  at the executive session, as required by 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 10, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-367                           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:

STANLEY F. SOBY

152 Elliott Drive

Colchester, CT 06415

 

COLCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION

c/o Thomas B. Mooney, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One American Row

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission