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