FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Bart Blau,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-99

 

East Hampton Town Council,

 

                                Respondent                          October 25, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 24, 1995, 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.             It is found that on March 14, 1995 the respondent held a public meeting in accordance with the provisions of 1-21, G.S., ("March meeting").

 

                3.             It is found that it is the respondent's practice to permit public comment at its meetings.

 

                4.             It is found that at the March meeting the complainant was permitted to read from a prepared statement during the public comment segment of the meeting.

 

                5.             It is found that when the complainant referred to town officials by name during the reading of his statement he was asked by the respondent's chairperson to limit his identifications of an individual to his or her municipal office or designation.

 

                6.             It is found that the complainant objected to the respondent's request and challenged the chairperson's authority to even make such a request.

 

                7.             It is found that the respondent cited section 36 of Robert's Rules of Order as the authority for the request.

 

Docket #FIC 95-99                                               Page 2

 

                8.             It is found that the complainant refused to comply with the respondent's request, and as a result a heated exchange involving the complainant, several audience members, and the respondent chairperson ensued.

 

                9.             It is found that in order to quell the disturbance the respondent asked the audience to leave the meeting room.

 

                10.           By letters of complaint to the Commission filed March 28 and April 4, 1995, the complainant alleged that the  respondents convened an "illegal executive session" at the March meeting when the audience was "ejected".  Additionally, the complainant alleged that the respondent was without authority to "censure" his remarks at the March meeting.

 

                11.           By pleading dated August 10, 1995 and filed with the Commission on August 14, 1995, the respondent cross claimed that the complainant's appeal was frivolous and intended "solely to harass the respondent," and therefore requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the complainant.

 

                12.           It is found that the respondent believed that the complainant would not back down from his position as long as the audience was present and therefore the March meeting was halted in an effort to calm the complainant and restore order to the meeting in accordance with 1-21h, G.S.

 

                13.           It is found that the complainant was asked by the respondent chairperson to remain in attendance throughout the recess, and an executive session was neither called nor convened by the respondent.

 

                14.           Specifically, it is found that during the recess of the March meeting no council business was discussed or acted upon, and the sole purpose of the recess was to convince the complainant to comply with the respondent chairperson's request  concerning the avoidance of using proper names when reading from his statement.

 

                15.           It is found that ultimately the recess served its purpose because after approximately twenty minutes the complainant agreed to comply with the respondent's request, and the audience members were called back to the meeting room where the meeting was reconvened and continued with the complainant reading from his statement without further incident.

 

                16.           It is found that while the Freedom of Information Act gives members of the public the right to attend meetings of public agencies, it provides no such rights with respect to public comment at public meetings.

 

Docket #FIC 95-99                                               Page 3

 

                17.           It is therefore concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over that portion of the complaint dealing with public comment.

 

                18.           It is found that there is insufficient evidence upon which to make a finding that the complainant's appeal was "frivolous and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent," and therefore the Commission declines to impose a civil penalty against the complainant in this case.

 

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

 

                1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-99                                               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:

Bart Blau

14 Terp Road

East Hampton, CT 06424

 

East Hampton Town Council

c/o Paul Buhl, Esq.

P.O. Box 384

Moodus, CT 06469

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission