FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Laurie I. Blair,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-323

 

Chester Board of Selectmen and Chester Board of Finance

 

                        Respondent                  June 11, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 7, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated October 10, 1992, and filed with the Commission on October 15, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by:

 

                        a.  holding certain unnoticed budget workshops sometime during the spring of 1992 but prior to May, 1992;

 

                        b.  discussing the reduction of the complainant's salary and hours worked at such unnoticed budget workshops without prior notification to the complainant;

 

                        c.  failing to provide minutes for certain of such budget workshops; and

 

                        d.  failing to adequately set forth in the minutes the nature of the proceedings that transpired at certain of such budget workshops.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondents held budget workshops during the spring of 1992.

 

            4.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2a. and 2b., above, it is found that the Commission lacks

 

Docket #FIC 92-323                                  Page 2

 

jurisdiction under 1-21i(b), G.S., because the complainant did not file her complaint with the Commission within the required statutory time periods.

 

            5.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., states in pertinent part that an agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.

 

            6.  Section 1-21(a), G.S., states in pertinent part that the meetings of all public agencies shall be open to the public, and the votes of each member of such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.

 

            7.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c., above, it is found that the respondents failed to maintain minutes of such budget workshops.

 

            8.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2d., above, it is found that the repondents failed to adequately set forth the nature of the proceedings that transpired at such budget workshops.

 

            9.  It is therefore concluded that with respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2c. and 2d., above, the respondents violated 1-19(a) and 1-21(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 with respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2a. and 2b. of the findings, above.

 

            2.  The respondents shall construct minutes for each of the budget workshops held by the respondents during the spring of 1992 for which no minutes currently exist, which minutes shall be constructed and filed with the municipal clerk within thirty days of the mailing of the notice of the final decision in this matter.

 

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

 

            4.  The Commission wishes to remind the respondents that pursuant to 1-18a(b), G.S., the definition of meeting includes "any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency," and, as such, budget workshops are subject to the written notice and minutes provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.  The Commission also reminds the respondents of its authority to issue civil penalties for the denial of Freedom of Information rights without reasonable.

 

Docket #FIC 92-323                                  Page 3

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 9, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-323                                  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:

Laurie I. Blair

c/o Atty. Ralph E. Wilson

137 South Main Street

Middletown, CT 06457

 

Chester Board of Selectmen and Chester Board of Finance

c/o Atty. John S. Bennet

Gould, Larson, Bennet & Munro

P. O. Box 959

Essex, CT 06426

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission