FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

David E. Lucier and Democratic Town Committee,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-139

 

Canterbury Board of Selectmen,

 

                        Respondent                  December 23, 1992

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 28, 1992, at which time the complainants 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 dated April 21, 1992, and filed with the Commission on April 23, 1992, the complainants alleged that the respondent board violated the Freedom of Information Act by having insufficient minutes for certain special meetings, by failing to make available the minutes of certain special meetings, by holding emergency meetings in the absence of actual emergencies and by scheduling special and emergency meetings at times that are inconvenient to maximum public attendance.

 

            3.  The complainants' allegations concerning the respondent board's having insufficient minutes relate specifically to 13 special meetings held on the following dates: December 10, 1991; December 26, 1991; December 27, 1991; December 30, 1991; January 2, 1992 (1:00pm); January 2 , 1992 (2:45pm); January 15, 1992; January 27, 1992 (9:38am); March 13, 1992; March 20, 1992; March 25, 1992; April 1, 1992; and April 4, 1992.

 

            4.  With respect to the allegations referred to in paragraph 3, above, it is found that the minutes of the respondent board's special meetings of December 10, 1991; March 20, 1992; April 1, 1992; and April 4, 1992 are sufficient for purposes of 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., and therefore the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act with respect to such allegations.

 

Docket #FIC 92-139                           Page 2

 

            5.  Also with respect to the allegations referred to in paragraph 3, above, it is found that the minutes of respondent board's special meetings of December 26, 1991; December 27, 1991; December 30, 1991; January 2, 1992 (1:00pm); January 2, 1992 (2:45pm); January 15, 1992; January 27, 1992 (9:38am); March 13, 1992; and March 25, 1992 are in violation of 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., because they fail to adequately set forth the nature of the proceedings that transpired at these meetings.

 

            6.  The complainants' allegations concerning the respondent board's failure to make available to the public minutes of certain special meetings relate specifically to five special meetings held on the following dates: December 13, 1991; January 8, 1991; January 20, 1992; March 4, 1992; and March 30, 1992.

 

            7.  With respect to the allegations referred to in paragraph 6, above, it is found that the respondent board failed to keep and maintain minutes of the special meetings identified in that paragraph in violation of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            8.  The complainants' allegations concerning the respondent board's holding of emergency meetings in the absence of actual emergencies relate specifically to four emergency meetings held on the following dates: December 16, 1991; December 20, 1991; January 3, 1992 (11:00am); and January 3, 1992 (12:20pm).

 

            9.  With respect to the allegations referred to in paragraph 8, above, it is found that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider these allegations pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., because the complainants did not file their complaint within the required thirty day periods after such meetings were held.

 

            10.  With respect to the complainants' allegations that the respondent board scheduled special and emergency meetings at times that are inconvenient to maximum public attendance, it is concluded that even if such allegations were true, while they would be violations of the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act, they are not in violation of any explicit provision of such Act.

 

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

 

            1.  Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the minutes requirements set forth in 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 92-139                           Page 3

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 23, 1992.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-139                           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:

David E. Lucier

Democratic Town Committee

315 Barstow Road

Canterbury Road

 

Canterbury Board of Selectmen

c/o Attorney Nicholas F. Kepple

Suisman, Shapiro, Wool

P.O. Box 1591

New London, CT 06320

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission