FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Lucy DiRocco, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC
1999-240 |
|
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 1999-239, 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.
By letter dated May 25, 1999 and filed on May 26, 1999, the complainant
appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom
of Information (“FOI”) Act by:
holding an
unnoticed or secret meeting and arriving at a consensus to create a Select
Committee between the adjournment of the respondent board’s regular meeting
of May 19, 1999 and before mid-morning on May 20, 1999.
The complainant requested that the Commission compel the respondent board to produce minutes and a record of the discussions surrounding the alleged unnoticed or secret meeting, to henceforth comply with the public meetings statutes. The complainant requested further that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.
3.
It is found that the respondent board held a regular meeting on May 19,
1999 (hereinafter “the meeting”).
4.
It is found that the minutes of the meeting do not reflect any
discussion or consensus by the respondent board about the creation of a Select
Committee.
5.
It is found that on May 20, 1999, the respondent chairman wrote a
letter to the Superintendent of Schools (hereinafter “May 20, 1999 letter”)
indicating:
…At our
meeting last night, we unanimously agreed that under no circumstances would
any member of our Board support the elimination of the SRO [School Resource
Officer]….
…it
was the unanimous feeling among all our Board members that we immediately take
steps to put together a longer term plan for the Police Department and the
recommendation to the community regarding the possible use of both of these
new officers.
To that end,
we have scheduled on Wednesday, June 9th at 7:00 p.m. a Select
Committee, chaired by myself and joined by two other members of our Board to
work with the Police Department to assist them in developing a long-term plan
for the Police Department….
6.
The complainant contends that a quorum of the respondent board must
have communicated in private and come to the unanimous agreement, described in
the May 20, 1999 letter.
7.
Section 1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(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.
8.
It is found that there was no convening or assembly of a quorum of the
respondent board between the adjournment of the meeting and the issuing of the
May 20, 1999 letter by the respondent chairman.
It is also found that there was no communication by or to a quorum of
the respondent board between the adjournment of the meeting and the issuing of
the May 20, 1999 letter by the respondent chairman.
9.
It is therefore, concluded that there was no “meeting” of the
respondent board, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly
§1-18a(2)), G.S.], between the adjournment of the meeting and the issuing of
the May 20, 1999 letter.
10.
Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the
FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.
11.
However, it is found that some of the characterizations contained in
the May 20, 1999 letter about what occurred at the meeting, specifically those
concerning the respondent board’s creation of a “Select Committee” and
the respondent board scheduling of the June 9, 1999 Select Committee meeting,
are at best misleading as to the precise discussions of the members of the
respondent board during the meeting.
12.
While it is found that at some point during the meeting, when there was
a great deal of commotion, the respondent chairman asked respondents Shea and
Loughran if they would be interested in working further on the issue of police
staffing, and respondents Shea and Loughran consented, it is found that there
was no discussion by the respondent board members at the meeting about
specifically creating what is described in the respondent chairman’s May 20,
1999 letter as a “Select Committee”.
Neither was there an agreement by the respondent board members that a
June 9, 1999 Select Committee meeting would be held, as described in the May
20, 1999 letter.
13.
Further, it is found that the respondent chairman acted alone when he
wrote the May 20, 1999 letter.
14.
It is also found that the statements contained in the May 20, 1999
letter about the creation of a “Select Committee” and the scheduling of
the June 9, 1999 Select Committee meeting, appear to be based on the
individual opinion and decisions of the respondent chairman, rather than a
precise and accurate representation of the discussion and decisions of the
respondent board members that occurred at the meeting.
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
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
FIC1999-240FD/mrb/04/13/00