FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Alec Wargo,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-32

 

Naugatuck Code of Ethics Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  December 8, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 18, 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 dated February 4, 1993, and filed with the Commission on February 5, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by:

 

                        a.  Filing inaccurate minutes for its regular meeting scheduled for November 4, 1992; and

 

                        b.  Voting illegally at its January 6, 1993 regular meeting to approve the minutes of its November 4, 1992 regular meeting.

 

            3.  With respect to the allegations referred to in paragraph 2a., above, the complainant contends that there was no quorum of the respondent present on November 4, 1992 and consequently, no meeting occurred.  The complainant further contends that since no meeting occurred, no minutes should have been prepared and requests that this Commission order the respondent to remove from its record the minutes it presently has on file for the November 4, 1992 meeting.

 

            4.  The respondent on the other hand contends that this Commission lacks jurisdiction over the issue of the accuracy of the respondent's November 4, 1992 minutes, since the complaint  was not filed within the required thirty day period.

 

Docket #FIC 93-32     Page 2

 

            5.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., requires that each agency make, keep and maintain a record of its proceedings.

 

            6.  It is concluded that pursuant to 1-19(a), G. S., this Commission has jurisdiction over the issue of whether the respondent has made, kept and maintained minutes that accurately reflect the proceedings at the respondent's November 4, 1992 meeting.

 

            7.  Section 1-18a(b), G. S., defines a meeting as any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

 

            8.  It is concluded that the gathering of the respondent's members on November 4, 1992, was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G. S., because, notwithstanding the absence of a quorum, it was a proceeding to discuss or act upon matters over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

 

            9.  It is concluded that, with respect to the allegations referred to in paragraph 2a., above, the respondent's minutes accurately reflect the proceedings at the respondent's November 4, 1992 meeting, and therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that the respondent has violated any of his rights under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            10.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2b., above, it is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on January 6, 1993.

 

            11.  Section 1-21(a), G.S., requires that an agenda for a regular meeting be available to the public within twenty-four hours of the subject meeting.  Section 1-21(a), G. S., further provides that any subsequent business not included in such an agenda may be considered upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the agency members present and voting.

 

            12.  It is found that the respondent considered and voted at its January 6, 1993 meeting to approve the minutes of its November 4, 1992 meeting without including this item of business on its agenda, and without taking a vote to add this to its agenda.

 

            13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., by improperly considering an item not previously included on its agenda.

 

Docket #FIC 93-32                 Page 3

 

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

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed with respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2a. of the findings, above.

 

            2.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 8, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-32                 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:

Mr. Alec Wargo

1058 Rubber Avenue

Naugatuck, CT 06770

 

Naugatuck Code of Ethics Commission

c/o Kevin H. McSherry, Esq.

McSherry & Smith

38 Fairview Avenue

Naugatuck, CT 06770

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission