FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Keith M. Phaneuf & Journal Inquirer,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 1995-417
Manchester General Manager and
Manchester Board of Directors,
Respondent(s) September 25, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 2, 1996, at which time the complainant(s) and respondent(s) 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on December 29, 1995, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated §1-21, G.S., by holding two unnoticed meetings on November 30, 1995 and December 3, 1995, to discuss whether to enter into a public-private venture wherein a private company mined methane gas at the town landfill (“project”).
3. The respondents concede that on November 30th and December 4th small groups of the respondent board—four members or less—met with the respondent general manager and his staff to discuss the project.
4. The respondents argue that the “sessions” were essentially administrative meetings called by the respondent manager to distribute informational materials about the project, and to make a presentation about methane gas recovery to less than a quorum of the respondent board members. The respondents maintain that they would not have met if all of the respondent board members could only attend the same meeting.
5. It is found that the respondent board consists of nine members and that five members constitute a quorum.
6. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., defines a meeting
as:
any hearing or
other proceeding of a public
agency, any convening or assembly
of a quorum of a multimember
public agency, and any communication by or to
a quorum of a multimember
public agency, … to discuss or act upon
a matter over
which the public agency has supervision,
control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
‘Meeting’ shall not include:
an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member
public agency. (Emphasis added.)
7. Section 1-21(a), G.S., states in relevant part that the meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions … shall be open to the public.”
8. It is found that at the respondents’ November 21, 1995 regular meeting, the chairman of the respondent board asked that small group meetings of respondent board members be held with the respondent manager to review and discuss in greater detail, the materials relating to the project, before December 31, 1995.
9. It is found that December 31, 1995, was the date by which the town was to have signed a lease agreement for the project, but approval to go forward with the project and to enter into such an agreement first required a vote of approval by the respondent board on or about December 12, 1995.
10. It is found that at the respondents’ November 21st meeting, respondent board members made suggestions about the issues to be discussed at the small group meetings, including the sources of funding for the project, the extent of town liability, minimum insurance requirements, and the ability to adjust percentage and rate agreements contained in any contract.
11. It is found that on November 30th and December 4th the respondent manager and less than a quorum of the respondent board members met and discussed the project, and at the November 30th meeting the respondents also discussed the expansion of the town hall facilities.
12. It is found that the approval and funding of both the project and town hall’s expansion are each within the supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power of the respondent board.
13. It is found that at a meeting held on or about December 12, 1995, the respondent board voted to approve the project.
14. Based upon
the findings set forth in paragraphs 8 through 13, above, it is found that
despite the absence of a quorum, the board members who attended the November 30th
and
December 4th meetings met under the express authority of the
respondent board to discuss matters over which the respondent board had supervision, control, jurisdiction or
advisory power within the meaning of §1-18a(b).
15. It is also found that the meetings described in paragraphs 3 and 11 of the findings, above, constitute proceedings of the respondent board, and therefore meetings within the meaning of §§1-18a(b) and 1-21(a), G.S.
16. It is found further that the members of the respondent board have not cited any reason why the meetings of November 30th and December 4th could not have occurred in public session.
17. Consequently, it is concluded under the facts and circumstances of this case, that the respondent board violated the open meeting provision of §1-21(a), G.S., when its members met on November 30th and December 4th .
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent board shall strictly comply with the open meeting requirements set forth in §1-21(a), G.S.
2. The complaint is hereby dismissed with respect to the respondent manager.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Keith M. Phaneuf
Journal Inquirer
306 Progress Drive
P.O. Box 510
Manchester, CT 06045-0510
Manchester General Manager and Manchester Board of Directors
c/o Michael M. Darby, Esq.
Town Attorney
41 Center Street
P.O. Box 191
Manchester, CT 06045-0191
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission