FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Patrick Cloutier, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-416 |
|
|
Richard Hine, Chairman,
Ethics |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
November 8, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This matter was heard as a contested case on September 8, 2000, at which time the complainant 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
2. By letter dated August 2, 2000, and filed with the Commission on August 3, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by:
a) failing to file proper notice of a July 31, 2000, special meeting [hereinafter “the meeting”];
b) failing to have on hand an appointed secretary to record minutes of the meeting; and
c) failing to electronically record the meeting.
The complainant asked that all actions taken by the respondents at the meeting be declared null and void and that a civil penalty be imposed against the respondent chairman. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant asked only that the respondents be ordered to comply with the FOI Act in the future.
3. Section 1-225, G.S., provides in relevant part:
…The votes of each member of
any…public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced
to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours
and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, which
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, except for the General Assembly, either house thereof or any committee
thereof, 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….
4. With respect to the allegations set forth in paragraph 2.b and 2.c, above, it is concluded that the complainant has not alleged any conduct on the part of the respondents that would constitute a violation of the FOI Act.
5. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents conceded that they violated §1-225, G.S., by failing to file notice of the meeting at least twenty-four hours prior to its commencement. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents thereby violated the FOI Act, as alleged in paragraph 2.a, above.
6. It is found that, within a week of the meeting, the respondents conducted a second meeting, which was properly noticed within the meaning of §1-225, G.S., at which the business considered at the meeting was reconsidered and acted upon.
7. It is concluded that, considering the finding in paragraph 6, above, it is not necessary to declare null and void the actions taken at the meeting.
8. It is further concluded that a civil penalty is not appropriate in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225, G.S.
2. The complainant is advised that the Commission seeks to resolve undisputed matters without the need for costly and time-consuming administrative hearings. Considering the findings in paragraphs 5, and 6, above, this complaint might have been resolved through the Commission’s ombudsman process, and the complainant is urged to utilize such process in the future.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 2000.
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
Patrick Cloutier
31 Connerton Street
New Britain, CT 06051
Richard Hine, Chairman, Ethics Commission,
City of New Britain; and Ethics Commission,
City of New Britain
c/o Joseph E. Skelly, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Corporation Counsel
City of New Britain
27 West Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051; and
Richard Hine, Esq.
222 South Mountain Drive
New Britain, CT 06052
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission