FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

William Garrett, Cesar A. Batalla, Annette Mathews, Brian C. Hariskevich and Neighbors Against Crime,

 

                                Complainants

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 91-340

 

Bridgeport Common Council Economic Development Committee,

 

                                Respondent                          September 9, 1992

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 13, 1992, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the hearing on this matter Bridgeport Jai Alai, Incorporated,  sought and was granted intervenor status.

 

                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 dated and filed October 29, 1991 the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that on October 28, 1991, the respondent committee held a meeting that was not noticed with the Bridgeport City Clerk, in violation of the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act.  In addition, the complainants asked for numerous forms of relief, including the  nullification of any business conducted during the October 28, 1991 gathering.

 

                3.  It is found that during the latter portion of 1991, the Bridgeport Common Council (hereinafter "Council") was in the process of considering a proposal by Bridgeport Jai Alai, Incorporated, to convert its jai alai fronton, located in the City of Bridgeport, into a dog racing track (hereinafter "conversion matter").

 

Docket #FIC 91-340                                             Page 2

 

                4.  Section 12-574c(c), G.S., as amended in 1991, provides that jai alai frontons may be converted to dog racing tracks.

 

                5.  Section 12-574(a), G.S., requires that the legislative body of the municipality in which a jai alai facility is located approve a conversion proposal prior to such a conversion.

 

                6.  It is found that the Council is the legislative body in the City of Bridgeport that must approve any conversion proposals such as the one described in paragraph 3 above, pursuant to 12-574(a), G.S.

 

                7.  It is also found that the Council referred the conversion matter to both the respondent committee and the Council's Public Affairs Committee.

 

                8.  It is also found that there was a joint meeting of the respondent committee and the Public Affairs Committee on October 23, 1991.

 

                9.  It is also found that the conversion matter aroused the interest of various organized groups, some of which were in favor of the conversion, and others who were opposed to the conversion.

 

                10.  It is also found that during the joint meeting described in paragraph 8 above, the committees decided to schedule a gathering for the purpose of enabling the various interested groups to discuss their issues and concerns and how they might be addressed in the proposal.

 

                11.  It is also found that on October 28, 1991 at 6:00 p.m., certain members of the respondent committee gathered in the Mayor's conference room along with Bridgeport's Director of Economic Development, at least two other Council members and certain persons from the various interested groups, including the complainants, for the intended purpose described in paragraph 10, above.

 

                12.  It is also found that the respondent committee consists of seven Council members, at least four of whom were present during the October 28, 1991 gathering.

 

                13.  It is also found that earlier in the afternoon of October 28, 1991, counsel for the intervenor met with members of one of the interested groups, the East Main Street Revitalization Association (hereinafter "EMSRA"), and discussed the conversion matter, including the proposal criteria that

 

Docket #FIC 91-340                                             Page 3

 

would be acceptable to EMSRA.

 

                14.  It is also found that counsel for the intervenor went to the Mayor's conference room for the 6:00 p.m. gathering on October 28, 1991 and announced to the persons present that an agreement had been reached with EMSRA concerning the conversion matter.

 

                15.  The respondent maintains that the members of the respondent committee were not aware of and did not discuss the substance of the agreement with EMSRA, that there was no significant discussion, and that the gathering dispersed by 6:30 p.m.

 

                16.  It is found that on November 4, 1991, there was a joint meeting of the respondent committee and the Public Affairs Committee, at which a resolution concerning the conversion was approved by the two committees.

 

                17.  It is also found that the full Council approved the  resolution to undergo the jai alai to dog race track conversion at a meeting immediately following the joint meeting of the two committees described in paragraph 16, above, and that the resolution incorporates a document, entitled "Five Points of Understanding," that details the agreement with EMSRA.

 

                 18.  The respondent maintains that there was no formal vote of the respondent committee on October 28, 1991, that the committee did not conduct any formal business, and that therefore the gathering did not constitute a violation of the FOI Act.

 

                19.  Section 1-18a(b), G.S., provides in part that a "meeting" for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act includes "any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency,...to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power."

 

                20.  It is found that a quorum of the respondent committee met on October 28, 1991 to discuss a matter over which the respondent committee had jurisdiction or advisory power, and further that the portion of the meeting during which the attorney for the intervenor conveyed that an agreement had been reached with EMSRA, constituted communication to a quorum of the respondent committee.

 

Docket #FIC 91-340                                             Page 4

 

                21.  It is concluded therefore that the October 28, 1991 gathering constituted a meeting of a public agency as defined by 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

                22.  It is found that the respondent committee did not comply with the notice, agenda or minutes requirements set forth in 1-21(a), G.S., with respect to its October 28, 1991 meeting.

 

                23.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent committee violated 1-21(a), G.S.

 

                24.  Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission, in its discretion, declines to impose the specific forms of relief requested by the complainants.

 

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

 

                1.  Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 9, 1992.

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-340                                             Page 5

 

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:

William Garrett

520 Savoy Street

Bridgeport, CT 06606

 

Cesar A. Batalla

629 Birmingham

Bridgeport, CT 06606

 

Annette Mathews

Brian C. Hariskevich

33 Adams Street

Bridgeport, CT 06607

 

Bridgeport Common Council Economic Development Committee

c/o Attorney John H. Barton

Legal Department

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission