FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Sydney M. Libby,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-186
Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission,
Respondent November 10, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 28, 1993, at which time the complainant 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 of complaint filed July 1, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent conducted a June 23, 1993 secret session without notice 24 hours before the meeting describing the business to be transacted.
3. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on June 23, 1993.
4. It is found that the meeting was held pursuant to a properly filed schedule of regular meetings.
5. It is found that the agenda for the meeting was filed with and posted by the town clerk more than 24 hours before the June 23, 1992 meeting.
6. It is found that item "3" of that agenda provides:
STAFF REPORTS AND COMMISSION AFFAIRS
3.1 ZEO Sign Report
3.2 Executive Session--Pending Litigation
7. It is found that the respondent convened in executive session for the stated purpose of discussing pending litigation.
Docket #FIC 93-186 Page 2
8. It is found that the respondent actually convened in executive session to receive a report, conveyed through the planning director from the city attorney, regarding the strategy for defending a pending administrative appeal to the superior court, and to discuss that strategy.
9. It is concluded that the respondent convened in executive session for a purpose permitted by 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
10. It is also found that the planning director was invited to attend by the respondent, and that his presence was necessary to give testimony.
11. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21g, G.S, by inviting and receiving testimony from the planning director.
12. It is also found, however, that the agenda item under which the respondent took up the business described in paragraph 8, above, was not adequate to notify the public of the business to be transacted.
13. Specifically, it is found that the agenda did not even name the pending case to be discussed.
14. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to file an agenda that adequately described the business to be transacted at the meeting.
15. The Commission notes that 1-21(a), G.S., permits an agency to add to the agenda of its regular meetings by a two-thirds vote, but no such vote was taken at the respondent's June 23 regular meeting.
Docket #FIC 93-186 Page 3
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 agenda requirements of 1-21(a) concerning the business to be considered and acted upon at a regular meeting.
2. With respect to the remainder of the allegations concerning the propriety of the executive session and attendance at that session, the complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 10, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-186 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:
Sydney M. Libby
c/o Todd D. Fernow, Esq.
UConn Legal Clinic
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Middletown Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o Timoth P. Lynch, Esq.
Deputy City Attorney
P.O. Box 1300
Middletown, CT 06457
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission