FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-485 |
|
|
Board of Education,
Watertown Public |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
January 24, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 29, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent’s motion to dismiss filed pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S., was denied by the hearing officer at the hearing.
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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated
August 29, 2000 and filed on August 30, 2000, the complainant appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act with respect to an August 7, 2000 special meeting of the respondent by:
a.
failing to file a “specific” agenda for the meeting; and
b.
discussing a legal opinion at the meeting, when such
opinion had not been included on the meeting’s agenda.
The
complainant requests that the decision taken by the respondent at the August
7, 2000 meeting be declared null and void.
3. It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on August 7, 2000 (hereinafter “meeting”), during which it discussed, and voted on, a legal opinion concerning whether the respondent should take action to extend the complainant’s contract as superintendent of schools.
4. It is found that the notice of the meeting that was issued, reads as follows:
AGENDA
WATERTOWN BOARD OF
EDUCATION SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 7,
2000-7:00 PM
POLK SCHOOL LIBRARY
A. Convene meeting
B. Executive Session
C. Regular Session
D. Adjournment
5. Section 1-225(d), G.S. [formerly §1-225(a), 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 … clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office… The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency….[Emphasis added.]
6. With respect to the allegation
as described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the notice of the
meeting does not “specify the business”, or any business, to be
transacted, within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S. [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.].
7. The respondent contends that it is the complainant who is responsible for preparing and filing the respondent’s meeting notices and therefore, any deficiency in the notice is the fault of the complainant and not of the respondent.
8. It is concluded that while
some blame may be attributed to the complainant in the preparation of the
notice, it is the respondent that is the “public agency” charged with the
ultimate responsibility of ensuring that its meeting notices are prepared and
filed in compliance with the notice requirements of §1-225(d), G.S. [formerly
§1-225(a), G.S.].
9. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(d), G.S. [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.] when it held the meeting without filing a notice that specified the business to be transacted at the meeting.
10. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b, above, and in light of findings 3 through 9, above, it is concluded that because no notice was filed in accordance with §1-225(d), G.S. [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.], specifying the business to be transacted at the meeting, it was improper for the respondent to have discussed the legal opinion, or indeed any other business, at the meeting.
11. It is found that at its July 24, 2000 regular meeting, as recorded in the minutes of such meeting, the respondent announced that “a special meeting will be held on August 7, 2000 … to vote on whether or not to renew the Superintendent’s contract.”
12. The respondent contends that the discussion of the legal opinion is sufficiently related to the topic of the vote on the superintendent’s contract and was therefore an appropriate matter to be addressed at the meeting.
13. It is concluded however, that the notice filed for the meeting specified no business at all, and therefore does not comport with the notice requirements of §1-225(d), G.S. [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.].
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The Commission declares null and void the vote taken at the special meeting of August 7, 2000.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the notice requirements of §1-225(d), G.S. [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.].
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 24, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Dinoo N. Dastur
c/o William S. Palmieri, Esq.
Williams and Pattis, LLC
51 Elm Street, Suite 409
New Haven, CT 06510
Board of Education,
Watertown Public Schools
c/o Franklin G. Pilicy, Esq.
365 Main Street
PO Box 760
Watertown, CT 06795
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-485/FD/paj/01/26/2001