FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Stonington Education Association,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-12
Stonington Board of Selectmen,
Respondent July 27, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 21, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 filed with this Commission on January 13, 1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by conducting an improperly noticed telephone meeting at 1:00 p.m. on January 7, 1994 and by therein voting on whether to reject an arbitration award between the complainant and the Stonington Board of Education ("SBE"). The complainant seeks to have this vote declared null and void.
3. It is found that the respondent had scheduled a duly noticed public meeting for January 7, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. to vote on whether to reject an arbitration award between the complainant and the SBE.
4. It is also found that the respondent instead conducted a telephone meeting and took the above-referenced vote by telephone at 1:00 p.m. on January 7, 1994.
5. The respondent claims that the 1:00 p.m. meeting was properly conducted as an "emergency meeting," and accordingly no prior notice was necessary.
6. The complainant claims that the 1:00 p.m. January 7, 1994 meeting of the respondent does not qualify as an emergency within the meaning of the FOI Act, and accordingly requested that the vote of the respondent at its unnoticed meeting be declared null and void.
Docket #FIC 94-12 Page 2
7. It is found that on December 16, 1993, an arbitration award regarding negotiations between the complainant and the SBE was filed with the Stonington Town Clerk.
8. It is also found that the respondent had twenty-five days from December 16, 1993 within which to vote on whether to reject the arbitration award.
9. It is found that in December, 1993, the respondent decided to schedule an information session on the matter of the arbitration award for January 6, 1994 and a special meeting for January 7, 1994 to vote after having had the opportunity to think the matter over individually.
10. It is found that due to a worsening snowstorm in progress on the morning of January 7, 1994, the respondent cancelled its special meeting of 4:00 p.m. and scheduled an emergency meeting for 1:05 p.m. that day to vote on rejection of the arbitration award, which rejection passed 3-0.
11. It is found that on the advice of counsel the respondent did not reschedule its meeting as a special meeting for Saturday January 8 or Sunday January 9, 1994.
12. It is also found that one of the three selectmen would be unavailable to meet on Monday, January 10, 1994.
13. It is found that the respondent chose not to reschedule its meeting as a special meeting on January 10, 1994 although a quorum of the respondent was capable of conducting a vote without its third member at that time.
14. The respondent also claims that because its rejection vote on the arbitration award was due by 11:00 a.m. on Monday January 10, 1994, it was precluded from conducting a duly-called special meeting by that time because it failed to cancel its 4:00 p.m. special meeting of January 7 until just after 11:38 a.m. that morning. Therefore, according to the respondent, the notice of a special meeting for Monday January 10, 1994 at 11:00 a.m. or earlier would need to have been posted at town hall at 11:00 a.m. or earlier on Friday January 7, 1994.
15. It is concluded that the respondent's lack of foresight does not constitute an emergency as provided for in 1-21(a), G.S.
16. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., by calling an emergency meeting for a non-emergency purpose and by holding the meeting without proper notice.
Docket #FIC 94-12 Page 3
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall henceforth act in strict compliance with those provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., concerning the calling of special and emergency meetings.
2. In light of the extensive evidence submitted to the Commission of efforts taken by the respondent to ameliorate the effects of their 1:00 p.m. meeting, including telephone inquiries concerning the propriety of their actions, notification of local news media and the use of a speaker phone for those successfully notified of the meeting, this Commission in its discretion declines to declare the vote taken by the respondent on January 7, 1994 null and void.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 27, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-12 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:
STONINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
c/o Ronald Cordilico, Esq.
CEA, Suite 500
21 Oak Street
Hartford, CT 06106-8001
STONINGTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN
c/o Thomas J. Londregan, Esq.
Conway & Londregan, P.C.
38 Huntington Street
P.O. Box 1351
New London, CT 06320-6170
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission