FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Susan G. Kniep,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-174
East Hartford Town Council,
Respondent April 18, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 13, 1994, 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 May 31, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent: (a) failed to bring a budget error to the attention of the public at a public hearing on the budget, and (b) discussed and formulated the budget without public scrutiny or comment.
3. It is found that the respondent met on May 10, 1994 for a public hearing on the mayor of East Hartford's proposed budget.
4. It is found that members of the respondent were informed just before the meeting that there had been a significant error in the calculation of the grand list, but not what the amount of the error was.
5. It is found that the respondent did not inform the members of the public who were present at that public hearing of the error in the grand list calculation.
6. It is found that the error in the grand list was subsequently determined to amount to some $18 million, which in turn would generate $700,000 to $800,000 less tax revenue than the estimate used by the mayor for the budget that was the subject of the public hearing.
Docket #FIC 94-174 Page 2
7. It is also concluded, however, that the failure of the respondent to divulge the information about the grand list error was not a violation of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.
8. It is found that the Democratic and Republican party caucuses met independently after the May 10 budget hearing to discuss their proposed revisions to the budget.
9. It is found that the discussions at those caucuses were influenced by the grand list error, but that the caucuses and proposals for a revised budget were part of an established procedure that would have occurred whether or not there was a grand list error.
10. It is found that the two individuals comprising the leadership of the two caucuses then met together on one or more occasions between May 10 and May 19, 1994, to reach agreement on a proposed revised budget.
11. It is found that they together generated a list of budget revisions that they believed reflected an accommodation of the desires of their respective caucuses.
12. It is found that the respondent then met on May 19, 1994 for the purpose of adopting a budget.
13. It is found that the budget revisions agreed upon by the caucus leaders were proposed in the form of a motion by the majority party leader, seconded by the minority leader, and unanimously approved by the members of the respondent.
14. It is found that there was no substantial discussion or debate concerning the proposed revised budget at the May 19, 1994 meeting.
15. The complainant maintains that the meetings of the leaders of the caucuses should have been open to the public.
16. The complainant additionally maintains that the public should have been informed before the May 19, 1994 meeting what the proposed revised budget was, and had an opportunity to comment on it.
17. The respondent in turn maintains that the caucuses met permissibly under the FOI Act, and that the meeting of the leadership was not a "meeting" within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
18. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., provides in relevant part:
"Meeting" means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a
Docket #FIC 94-174 Page 3
quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. "Meeting" shall not include: ... a caucus of members of a single political party notwithstanding that such members also constitute a quorum of a public agency .... "Caucus" means a convening or assembly of the enrolled members of a single political party who are members of a public agency within the state or a political subdivision. [Emphasis added].
19. It is found that the consideration and drafting of a revised budget is a matter over which the respondent has supervision, control, and jurisdiction
20. It is found that the meetings of the separate party caucuses were not "meetings" within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
21. It is also found, however, that the meetings of the two party leaders, apart from the caucuses, were not "caucuses" within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
22. It is found that a quorum of the respondent was not present at the meetings of the party leaders.
23. It is also found, however, that the party leaders had the authority to draft a proposed revised budget that would reflect the desires of their respective caucuses, a process that was entirely within the control of the respondent.
24. It is further found that the party leaders met under the implied authority of the respondent to discuss a matter over which the respondent had supervision, control, jurisdiction and advisory power, all within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., and Docket #94-39, Sydney M. Libby against Ad Hoc Committee of the Middletown Common Council and Middletown Common Council.
25. It is therefore concluded that the meeting of the party leadership constituted a proceeding of the respondent.
26. It is also found that the process by which the respective caucuses met independently and then communicated through their leaders was a method permitting the caucuses to efficiently communicate to each other without the necessity of convening together.
Docket #FIC 94-174 Page 3
27. It is therefore found that the communication between the two caucus leaders concerning the budget recommendations of their respective caucuses was a communication by or two a quorum of the respondent, within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
28. It is therefore concluded that the meetings of the two caucus leaders were "meetings" within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., both because the meetings were proceedings of the respondent, and because the meetings were communications by or to a quorum of the respondent.
29. It is found that the meetings of the two caucus leaders were not noticed, were not open to the public, and that no minutes were filed.
30. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by conducting meetings of its party leaders without complying with the open meetings requirements of that section.
31. It is found that the changes from the mayor's proposed budget to the respondent's budget were relatively modest, and that nothing was deliberately withheld from the complainant or the public.
32. The Commission notes, however, that it believes that the better policy would be to disclose those changes before meeting to adopt them, thus permitting an opportunity for comment before final action is taken.
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 requirements of 1-18a(b) and 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 18, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-174 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:
SUSAN G. KNIEP
50 Olde Roberts Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
EAST HARTFORD TOWN COUNCIL
c/o Janis M. Small, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission