FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Lucy DiRocco, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC
1999-239 |
|
Daniel Reese, Chairman, Board of
Finance, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
April 12, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 18, 1999, at
which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain
facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
Contested case docket #FIC 1999-240, Lucy DiRocco v. Daniel Reese,
Chairman, Board of Finance, City of New Fairfield; Art Azzarito; Sean Loughran;
Vincent Montesano; Margaret Day; Ronald Oliveri; Brian Shea, as members and
alternates, Board of Finance, City of New Fairfield; and Board of Finance,
City of New Fairfield was consolidated with the above-captioned matter for
purpose of hearing.
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 §1-200(1),
G.S., (formerly §1-18a(1),
G.S.).
2.
It is found that on or about May 1, 1999, the respondent chairman
received a memorandum dated April 27, 1999 (with a petition attached) from the
First Selectman of the town of New Fairfield (“New Fairfield”), requesting
that the respondent board hold a special meeting to address certain issues, in
connection with funding for a new School Resource Officer position.
3.
It is found that in response to the First Selectman’s memorandum, the
respondent board issued a letter on May 4, 1999 to the First Selectman
(hereinafter “May 4, 1999 letter”) indicating “…everyone is unanimous
in maintaining New Fairfield’s School Resource Officer and we oppose any
recommendation from your office which eliminates it, especially in light of
the most recent events in Colorado.” It
is also found that a slightly modified version of the May 4, 1999 letter was
published in a local newspaper on May 5, 1999 (hereinafter “May 5, 1999
letter”).
4.
It is further found that seven members of the respondent board (the
respondent chairman and the six individually named respondents) signed the May
4 and 5, 1999 letters.
5.
By letter of complaint dated May 20, 1999 and filed on May 21, 1999,
the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that a quorum of the
respondent board, specifically, the respondent chairman, and the six
individually named respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by:
a.
conducting
one or more unnoticed or secret meetings between April 27 and May 4, 1999;
b.
failing
to provide notice or minutes for the meeting(s) described in a) above; and
c.
denying
her and other members of the public the right to attend the meeting(s)
described in a) above.
The complainant requested in her complaint that the Commission compel the respondent board to henceforth comply with the public meetings statutes, produce minutes and a record of its discussions, conduct a proper open meeting, reimburse the town for any inappropriate use of postage in the mailings, and impose civil penalties upon the respondents.
6.
Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides that " ‘[M]eeting’ means …
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, 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.”
7.
It is found that on or about May 2, 1999, the respondent chairman
contacted respondent Day via e-mail and at that time informed her of the
contents of the First Selectman’s memorandum and the petition
8.
It is also found that the respondent chairman and respondent Day
thereafter drafted the May 4, 1999 letter, in response to the Mayor’s
memorandum and petition.
9.
It is further found that on or about May 2, 1999, the respondent
chairman telephoned William Frederick, a member of the respondent board, and
informed him that he had prepared the May 4,1999, letter and wanted to know
whether Frederick approved of the position taken in the letter and if he would
support the statements made therein. It
is found that Frederick informed the respondent chairman that he felt it was
inappropriate to discuss the issue outside of the context of a publicly
noticed meeting. Frederick did not sign the May 4, 1999 letter.
10.
It is further found that on or about May 2, 1999, the respondent
chairman then communicated with respondent Shea and made a similar inquiry as
he had done with Frederick, with respect to the May 4, 1999 letter.
Shea reviewed a draft of the May 4, 1999 letter, and believing that the
statements contained therein were consistent with the respondent board’s
position during prior budget meeting discussions, signed the letter and faxed
it back to the respondent chairman. Further,
it is found that at some time during the week end of May 2, 1999, the
respondent chairman and the six individually named respondents communicated
about the May 4, 1999 letter, and signed such letter.
11.
It is found that the communications by e-mail, fax and telephone,
culminating in the preparation and signing of the May 4 and 5, 1999 letters,
constitute “communication by or to a quorum” of the respondent board, by
means of “electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which
the” respondent board has “supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory
power” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.].
12.
It is therefore concluded that the respondents conducted a “meeting”
of the respondent board within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly
§1-18a(2), G.S.].
13.
It is further concluded that since no notice or minutes of the meeting
described in paragraph 12, above, was provided to the public, the respondents
violated §1-225(a), G.S. [§1-21(a),G.S.].
14.
It is, however, concluded that a civil penalty is not warranted in this
case.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1.
Henceforth the respondent chairman and respondent board shall strictly
comply with the notice and minutes requirements of the FOI Act.
2.
Forthwith, the respondent chairman and the respondent board shall
prepare minutes of the communications that occurred during the week end of May
2, 1999 by e-mail, telephone and fax, which led to the preparation of the May
4 and 5, 1999 letters.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of
April 12, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
Lucy DiRocco
22 Columbia
Drive
New
Fairfield, CT 06812
Daniel Reese, Chairman, Board of
Finance, City of New Fairfield; Art Azzarito; Sean
Loughran; Vincent Montesano; Margaret
Day; Ronald Oliveri; Brian Shea, as members and alternates, Board of Finance,
City of New Fairfield; and Board of Finance, City of New Fairfield
c/o Daniel Reese, Chairman
Board of Finance
City of New Fairfield
Two Hudson Drive
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Art Azzarito
14 Old Farm Road
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Sean Loughran
29 Bear Mountain Road
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Vincent Montesano
35 Sail Harbour Drive
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Margaret Day
24 Pheasant Drive
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Ronald Oliveri
24 Wood Ridge Lane
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Brian Shea
Two Camp Arden Road
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Board of Finance
City of New Fairfield
Four Brush Hill Road
New Fairfield, CT 06812
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-239FD/mrb/04/19/00