FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by Final
Decision
Angelo M.
Santella and James R. Cunningham, Commissioners, Third Taxing District of the
City of Norwalk
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-86
Blaise Heid,
Chairman, Third Taxing District Electors' Committee of the City of Norwalk and
Third Taxing District of the City of Norwalk
Respondents June 24, 1992
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on June 1, 1992, at which time the complainants and
the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
The matter was consolidated for hearing with contested cases docket #FIC
91-365, #FIC 91-384 and #FIC 92-33.
After consideration of the
entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are
reached:
1. By letter dated March 10, 1992 and filed with the Commission on
March 11, 1992, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the
Freedom of Information Act with respect to the conduct of a certain meeting.
2. It is found that the Third Taxing District of the City of Norwalk
is a body politic and corporate and constitutes a political subdivision of the
state.
3. It is also found that the representative legislative body for the
Third Taxing District is the Board of District Commissioners, which consists of
three elected commissioners.
4. It is also found that the complainants are two of the three
members the Board of District Commissioners and that they have brought this
complaint in their official capacities.
Docket #FIC
92-86 Page
2
5. It is also found that the electors of the Third Taxing District,
as electors, have certain rights with respect to some of the affairs of the
district, which rights are set forth in the district's charter, which, in turn,
provides for the convening of Annual and Special District Meetings of Electors
to exercise the rights of the electors.
6. It is found that the respondent Heid was elected chairman of the
Special District Meeting of Electors at issue here and that his election as
chairman was limited in term to the specific meeting at which the election
occurred.
7. It is further found that the respondent Heid was also elected and
ratified as a member of an Electors' Committee at several District Meetings of
Electors, but that this committee and Mr. Heid's participation therein are not
subjects of this complaint.
8. Although the complainants did not name the Special District
Meeting of Electors at issue here as a respondent in this matter, they
specifically contend that that meeting is a public agency within the meaning of
1-18a(a), G.S., and therefore it, and its records, are subject to the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
9. Subsection (a) of 1-18a, G.S. provides:
"Public agency" or
"agency" means any executive, administrative or legislative office of
the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town
agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or
official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation,
school district, regional district or other district or other political
subdivision of the state, including any committee of any such office, subdivision,
agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or
official, and also includes any judicial office, official or body or committee
thereof but only in respect to its or their administrative functions.
10. It is concluded that the Special District Meeting of Electors at
issue here was a meeting of the body politic and corporate of the Third Taxing
District - that is, a meeting of the district's electors themselves and not of
their representatives or representative agencies.
Docket #FIC
92-86 Page
3
11. Consequently, it is concluded that the Special District Meeting
of Electors at issue here was not a meeting of a public agency of a political
subdivision of the state, as the term "public agency" is defined in
1-18a(a), G.S.
12. It is therefore concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction
over this complaint because the complainants failed to name the subject Special
District Meeting of Electors of the Third Taxing District as a respondent and
because, nevertheless, such meeting is not a public agency within the meaning
of 1-18a(a), G.S.
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.
Approved by
Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June
24, 1992.
Karen
J.Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
92-86 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:
Jonathan M.
Levine, Esq.
Silver, Golub
& Teitell
184 Atlantic
Street
O. O. Box 389
Stamford,
CT 06904
Ridgely W.
Brown, Esq.
Brown &
Brown
10 Corbin Drive
P.O. Box 1205
Darien, CT 06820-1205
Karen
J.Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission