FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Corrected
Eva J. Brown and Edward Fedorowich, Jr.
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 95-46
Charles Colby, Ric Allen, Loyal Madden and Somers Computer Committee
and Phillips Roland, Deborah Numrych, James Persano, Peter Lewis, David Palmer,
Don Smith, James Botellio and Somers Workflow Ad Hoc Committee,
Respondents November 8, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 22, 1995, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated February 17, 1995, and filed with the Commission on February 24, 1995, the complainants alleged that the respondents Colby, Allen, Madden and computer committee violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by:
a. failing to file a schedule of regular meetings with the Somers Town Clerk;
b. failing to post or file agendas with the Somers Town Clerk;
c. failing to file minutes of meetings with the town clerk; and
d. holding a secret meeting on January 25, 1995.
Docket #FIC 95-46 Page 2
3. By letter dated February 17, 1995, and filed with the Commission on February 24, 1995, the complainants alleged that the respondents Roland, Numriych, Persan, Lewis, Palmer, Smith, Botellio and workflow ad hoc committee violated the FOI Act by:
a. failing to file a schedule of regular meetings with the Somers Town Clerk;
b. holding secret meetings on January 22, 1995 and February 5, 1995; and
c. failing to file agendas and minutes of the meetings referred to in paragraph 3b, above.
4. The complainants requested the imposition of civil penalties for the alleged violations as set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3, above.
5. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S. states in pertinent part:
A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal received notice in fact that such meeting was held. For purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked, if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such appeal is taken.
6. The complainants' February 17, 1995 letter of complaint, although received on February 24, 1995, was postmarked February 21, 1995, 30 days from the alleged January 22, 1995 secret meeting referred to in paragraph 3b, above.
7. The Commission, therefore, has jurisdiction over the three meetings referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, above.
8. Section 1-21(a), G.S., in material part, provides:
"...minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer. . . Notice of each special meeting of every public agency, . . . shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place . . . in the office of the clerk of such
Docket #FIC 95-46 Page 3
subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state . . ."
9. Section 1-19(a), G.S., in material part, provides:
"Each such agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located . . . Each such agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings...."
10. It is found that the respondent computer committee met on Jauary 25, 1995 and that the respondent workflow ad hoc committee met on January 22, 1995 and February 5, 1995.
11. It is also found that the respondent computer committee filed a schedule of regular meetings for 1995 with the Somers Town Clerk, but that its January 25, 1995 meeting was not listed on such schedule.
12. It is further found that the respondent workflow ad hoc committee did not file a schedule of regular meetings for 1995 with the Somers Town Clerk.
13. It is therefore found that the respondent computer committee's January 25, 1995 meeting and the respondent workflow ad hoc committee's January 22 and February 5, 1995 meetings constituted special meetings.
14. The respondents admit, and the Commission finds, that the respondents did not comply with the meetings requirements of the FOI Act, and in particular, with the notice of special meetings requirements as set forth in 1-21(a), G.S.
15. It is further found that the respondent computer committee did not file minutes of its January 25, 1995 meeting until May 18, 1995 and that the respondent workflow ad hoc committee has never filed minutes of its January 22 and Febraury 5, 1995 meetings.
16. It is therefore concluded that the respondent computer committee and the respondent workflow ad hoc committee violated 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., with respect to both notices and
Docket #FIC 95-46 Page 4
minutes of the meetings in question.
17. The respondents maintain that the violations of the FOI Act set forth above were due to the fact that they did not know the respondent committees were subject to the FOI Act until February, 9, 1995, when they received an opinion from Attorney Thomas Fahey stating that such agencies must comply with the requirements of the FOI Act.
18. It is found, however, that, even after receiving Attorney Fahey's opinion, the respondent committees continued to violate the FOI Act.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent workflow ad hoc committee shall forthwith file minutes of its January 22 and February 5, 1995 meetings.
2. The respondents shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
3. The respondents' claim that they previously did not know that the two committees were subject to the FOI Act is not credible. It appears that at best the committees demonstrated a cavalier disregard for the provisions of the FOI Act and at worst deliberately attempted to circumvent them.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 95-46 Page 5
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:
Eva J. Brown
125 Watchaug Road
Somers, CT 06071
Edward Fedorowich, Jr.
P.O. Box 124
Somers, CT 06071
Charles Colby, Ric Allen, Loyal Madden and Somers Computer Committee and Phillips Roland, Deborah Numrych, James Persano, Peter Lewis, David Palmer, Don Smith, James Botellio and Somers Workflow Ad Hoc Committee
c/o Thomas W. Fahey, Jr. Esq.
487 Spring Street, Suite 2
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission