FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-380 |
|
|
Charter Revision Commission, City of Middletown, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 28, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 4, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. For
purposes of hearing, the above-caption matter was consolidated with docket #s
FIC2000-378, Evelyn V. Russo v. Charter Revision Commission, City of
Middletown; FIC 2000-379, V. James Russo v. Charter Revision
Commission, City of Middletown; FIC 2000-382, Andrew Rak v. Charter
Revision Commission, City of Middletown; FIC 2000-383, David Roane v.
Charter Revision Commission, City of Middletown; and FIC 2000-384, John
S. Uccello v. Charter Revision Commission, City of Middletown.
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 dated July
19, 2000 and filed on July 20, 2000, the complainant appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act in the following manner:
a.
“ . . .failed to
publish a proper notice of its meeting schedule as required by law;
b.
failed to hold its
meeting of June 22, 2000 in conformity with the schedule of public meetings
filed with Middletown’s Town Clerk on April 4, 2000;
c.
failed to provide a
proper notice of the time of its meeting of June 22, 2000 which had to have
been a special meeting since it was called for an unspecified time following a
scheduled public hearing but not at the time noticed for meetings of the
commission on April 4, 2000.”
The
complainant requested that this Commission declare null and void or otherwise
invalidate the actions taken by the respondent commission at its June 22, 2000
meeting.
3.
With respect to the
complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 2a, above, §1-225(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that:
The
chairman or secretary of any such public agency of any political subdivision
of the state shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year,
with the clerk of such subdivision the schedule of regular meetings of such
public agency for the ensuing year, and no such meeting of any such public
agency shall be held sooner than thirty days after such schedule has been
filed . . . .
4.
It is found that the
respondent commission was established by the Common Council of the City of
Middletown on or about April 3, 2000 for the sole purpose of revising the city
charter.
5.
It is found that on
or about April 4, 2000, the respondent commission filed a schedule of its
regular meetings with the town clerk which established by memo that its
meetings would be held on “Tuesday or Thursday of each week at 6:00 p.m. at
various locations dependent upon available rooms, on an as need basis . . .”
with the first meeting scheduled for “. . . Tuesday, April 18, 2000
at 6 p.m. in the Police Community Room.”
6.
It is found that the
schedule filed by the commission is vague and does not meaningfully apprise
the public of the respondent commission’s regular meeting dates and times in
accordance with the requirements of §1-225(a), G.S.
7.
It is concluded
therefore that while the respondent commission acted in good faith it violated
the provisions of §1-225(a), G.S., in this case.
8.
With respect to the
complainant’s allegations described in paragraphs 2b and 2c, §1-225(a), G.S.,
further provides in relevant part that:
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 Secretary of the State for any
such public agency of the state, in the office of the clerk of such
subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state . .
. Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time
of the special meeting . . . [t]he 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 meeting by such public
agency. . . .
9.
It
is found that the respondent commission filed the notice of its June 22, 2000
meeting on June 16, 2000 which stated that “the Charter Revision Commission
will hold a meeting on Thursday, June 22, 2000 at the conclusion of the public
hearing . . . .” The public hearing was noticed to begin at 7:00 p.m., on
June 22, 2000, in the Police Community Room, Middletown Police Station, Main
Street.
10.
It is also found that
while the exact time of the June 22, 2000 meeting was not cited, such notice
was reasonable under the circumstances and sufficiently provided the public of
the time that the meeting would commence.
11.
It is also found that
the respondent commission filed the notice of, and the agenda for, its June
22, 2000 meeting at least twenty-four hours prior to said meeting and there is
no evidence that the respondent commission conducted any business other than
that which was listed on its agenda.
12.
It is concluded that
the respondent commission complied with the special meeting requirements of
§1-225(a), G.S.
13.
Notwithstanding the
conclusion set forth in paragraph 7, above, the Commission declines to declare
null and void the actions taken by the respondent commission at its June 22,
2000 meeting, as requested by the complainant.
On the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order is recommended by
the Commission.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 28, 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:
Joseph E. Milardo, Jr.
42 Morgan Street
Middletown, CT 06457
Charter Revision Commission
City of Middletown
c/o Timothy P. Lynch, Esq.
Deputy City Attorney
245 DeKoven Drive
PO Box 1300
Middletown, CT 06457
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-380/FD/paj/03/02/2001