FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Gregory M. Conte,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-83
Monroe Town Council
Respondent December 27, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 18, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. The matter
was consolidated for purposes of hearing with Gregory M. Conte v. Monroe Town
Council, Docket #FIC 95-94.
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 dated March 17, 1995 and
filed with the Commission on March 28, 1995, the complainant appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information
("FOI") Act with respect to an emergency meeting held on March 7,
1995 (hereinafter "March 7 meeting") by:
a.
failing to include in the notice of the March 7 meeting that an
executive session would be held;
b.
failing to adequately disclose in its March 7, 1995 meeting minutes the
purpose and necessity for discussing the Whitney Farms Golf Course contract
(hereinafter "contract") in executive session;
c.
failing to disclose in its March 7 minutes the nature of the emergency;
d.
discussing and/or voting on the contract and the preparation, printing
and distribution of an informational brochure which items were not included in
the March 7 meeting notice thereby transacting business on two items not
previously noticed.
Docket #FIC 95-83 Page
2
3. Section 1-21, G.S., provides in relevant part:
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 thereof ...
in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a
political subdivision of the state.....
The secretary or clerk shall cause any notice received under this
section to be posted in his office.
Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the
time of the special meeting; provided, in case of emergency ... any such
special meeting may be held without complying with the foregoing requirement
for the filing of notice but a copy of the minutes of every such emergency
special meeting adequately setting forth the nature of the emergency and the
proceedings occurring at such meeting shall be filed with ... the clerk of such
political subdivision not later than seventy-two hours following the holding of
such meeting. The notice shall specify
the time and place of the special meeting snd the business to be
transacted. No other business shall be
considered at such meetings by such public agency....
A public agency may hold an executive
session as defined in subsection (e) of section 1-18a, upon an affirmative vote
of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting, taken at a public
meeting and stating the reasons for such executive session, as defined in said
section. [Emphases added].
4. Section
1-18a(e), G.S., provides in relevant part:
"Executive sessions" means
a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of
the following purposes:... (4)
discussion of the ... purchase of real estate by a political subdivision
of the state when publicity regarding such ... purchase ... would cause a
likelihood of increased price until such time as all of the property has been
acquired or all proceedings or transactions concerning same have been
terminated or abandoned.
Docket #FIC 95-83 Page 3
5. It is
found that the respondent scheduled a special meeting for March 6, 1995, which
meeting notice was dated February 25, 1995, filed with the town clerk on
February 27, 1995, and indicated "the purpose of the meeting is to vote on
a resolution regarding a town meeting for the appropriations for, and the
purchase of, the Whitney Farms Golf Course (hereinafter "golf
course").
6. It is
found that the respondent by an amended notice dated February 25, 1995 again
issued notice of the March 6, 1995 special meeting, which amended notice
indicated that the purpose of the meeting was to vote on i) a resolution
regarding a town meeting for the appropriations for, and the purchase of, the
golf course, the office building and building lot; ii) the contract for the
purchase of the project; and iii) the preparation, printing and distribution of
an informational brochure relative to the acqusition of the project.
7. It is
found that the scheduled March 6, 1995 special meeting, described in paragraph
6, above, was cancelled because the seller of the golf course had not yet
signed the proposed contract.
8. It is
found that the golf course contract was signed by the seller on the morning of
March 7, 1995.
9. It is
found that the respondent on the morning of March 7, 1995, filed with the town
clerk a notice of an 8:00pm March 7, 1995 emergency meeting, which notice
indicates one purpose for the meeting, that purpose being the same as described
in paragraph 5, above.
10. It is
found that the respondent held the March 7 emergency meeting and that such meeting
was convened at the suggestion of the Selectman, Kenneth Heitzke, who believed
the meeting was necessary in order to adhere to a time-line sequence of events
he had created in connection with the golf course purchase.
11. It is
found however, that there was no compelling necessity to justify an emergency
meeting on March 7, 1995; that the meeting could have and should have been
delayed and held with at least twenty four hours notice to the public; that
providing the public with at least twenty four hours notice would not have
jeopardized the town's attempt to acquire the golf course; that in light of the
significant sum of money involved in the acquisition of the golf course, in
excess of $6.6 million dollars, the maximum public participation in the process
was desirable; that neither the desire to notice a March 14, 1995 town meeting
by March 8, 1995, so that the newspaper would publish such notice, nor the
inconvenience in obtaining a quorum constitute emergencies within the meaning
of 1-21(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 95-83 Page 4
12. With
respect to the allegations as described in paragraphs 2a. and 2d., and in light
of finding 11, above, it is found that the respondent failed to give at least
twenty four hours notice to the public prior to convening the March 7 meeting;
that the respondent could have at minimum convened a special meeting thereby
giving at least twenty four hours notice to the public; that such a special
meeting notice should have specified that the three items of business,
described in paragraph 6, above, would be transacted, in addition to any
intended executive session and the allowed purpose for such executive session.
13. It is
also found that the respondent discussed and voted on the golf course contract
and the informational brochure issues when the public was not provided with
notice that business would be transacted on these matters.
14. With
respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b., above, it is found
that the respondent failed to adequately indicate the purpose of the executive
session as such purposes are defined at 1-18a(e), G.S. However, it is found that the discussion in
executive session of the pending golf course contract did not in itself violate
1-18a(e)(4), G.S.
15. With
respect to the allegations as described in paragraph 2c., above, it is found
that the respondent's minutes failed to indicate the nature of the emergency
requiring an emergency meeting on March 7.
Further, the proceedings as indicated in the March 7 minutes do not
constitute emergencies within the meaning of 1-21(a), G.S.
16. It is
therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21, G.S., when it
convened an emergency meeting on March 7, 1995, failed to provide the public
with at least twenty four hours notice prior to having such meeting, failed to
indicate in its notice of such meeting the three items of business described in
paragraph 6, above, discussed and voted on the contract and informational
brochure issues and failed to adequately indicate in its minutes the purpose
for the executive session.
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 strictly comply wth the provisions of
1-18a(e) and 1-21, G.S.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 27, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-83 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:
Gregory M. Conte
136 Wheeler Road
Monroe, CT 06468
Monroe Town Council
c/o James White, Jr., Esq.
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission