FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Robert J. Koskelowski,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-133

 

Seymour Board of Finance,

 

                        Respondent                  December 22, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 2, 1993, at which time the complainant, but not the respondent, appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket # FIC 93-100 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.

 

            By order of the undersigned Hearing Officer, the hearing in this matter was reopened on November 9, 1993 for the sole purpose of determining whether a civil penalty should be issued against the respondent in Docket # FIC 93-133.  At that time both the complainant and the respondent, appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the civil penalty issue.

 

            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 May 5, 1993 and filed with the Commission on May 7, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to give adequate notice of the business to be conducted at its May 1, 1993 special meeting and voting illegally at such meeting to recommend the 1993-94 budget to the annual town meeting.  In addition, the complainant requested that the Commission issue civil penalties against the chairwoman of the respondent board.

 

            3.  The complainant contends that the agenda for the May 1, 1993 special meeting was misleading because it stated budget deliberations, however, the respondent voted on the budget which action was never noticed.  The complainant further contends that the decision to vote on the budget was taken even though he repeatedly informed the respondent that such unnoticed action would be improper.

 

Docket #FIC 93-133                           Page 2

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent filed a notice of its May 1, 1993 special meeting, which notice included an agenda consisting of one item described as "1993-94 budget deliberations."

 

            5.  It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on May 1, 1993, at which meeting it voted to recommend the 1993-94 budget to the annual town meeting.

 

            6.  It is found that on prior occasions the respondent held special meetings on March 12 and March 17, 1993 and that the notices for such meetings stated budget deliberations and that the minutes for such meetings reflect that no action other than deliberations occurred.

 

            7.  However, it is also found that the respondent held a special meeting on March 30, 1993 and although the agenda for such meeting stated budget deliberations the minutes reflect that action other than deliberations occurred.

 

            8.  In addition, it is found that the notices for the respondent's special meetings scheduled for May 12 and 28, 1993 described the agendas as "to consider and take action necessary on the 1993-1994 budget" and "1993-94 budget deliberations including any action necessary", respectively.

 

            9.  Section 1-12(a), G.S., states in pertinent part:

 

                        The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency.

 

            10.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to notice the vote taken on the 1993-94 budget at its May 1, 1993 special meeting, and by improperly voting on such item not previously noticed on its agenda.

 

            11.  The Commission in its discretion declines to issue a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

            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 provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Docket # FIC 93-133                                   Page 3

 

            2.  The Commission takes this opportunity to remind the respondent that notices of meetings should accurately and clearly apprise the public of the nature of the business the agency intends to conduct.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 22, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket # FIC 93-133                                   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. Robert J. Koskelowski

c/o Richard S. Bruchal, Esq.

330 East Main Street

Ansonia, CT 06401

 

Seymour Board of Finance

c/o Ms. Joyce P. Abramczyk

20 Bungay Road

Seymour, CT 06483

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission