FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Robin Fugiero, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket # FIC 2001-038 |
|
|
Arthur C. Laske,
III, Assistant |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 23, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
On March 16, 2001, the hearing officer in the above-captioned matter sent written notice to the parties that the Commission would consider a motion pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S. On April 14, 2001, the respondent moved to dismiss this matter without a hearing pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S.
1. Section 1-206(b)(4), G.S., provides that:
“[n]otwithstanding any provision of this subsection to the contrary, in the case of an appeal to the commission of a denial by a public agency, the commission may, upon motion of such agency, confirm the action of the agency and dismiss the appeal without a hearing if it finds, after examining the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the appellant, that the agency has not violated the Freedom of Information Act.”
2. The notice of appeal in this matter alleges that the complainant timely filed her complaint with the Commission on January 4, 2001. The notice of appeal in this matter further alleges that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying her request to attend a meeting(s) he conducted on December 7, 2000. The notice of appeal in this matter also asks that the Commission refer to statements of the respondent made in the record of Docket #FIC 2000-634; Robin Fugiero v. Superintendent of Schools, Bridgeport Public Schools; Principal, Blackham School, Bridgeport Public Schools; and Fire Marshal Division, Fire Department, City of Bridgeport [hereinafter “Docket #FIC2000-634”], as well as an exhibit in such record.
3. The exhibit referenced by the complainant is a December 13, 2000, letter from the respondent to the complainant, wherein the respondent states:
“First, pursuant to your request I met with various representatives of the Bridgeport Fire Department and the Board of Education, including Chief Maglione and Superintendent of Schools Salcedo. In reviewing your letters I attempted to coordinate and approach from all involved City offices that would alleviate some of your concerns regarding your daughter’s participation in school fire drills.”
4. It is found that the respondent’s statement in the record of Docket #FIC2000-634 indicates that, as a result of a letter written by the complainant, he, as assistant city attorney, during November and early December of 2000, worked with a Bridgeport school principal, the Bridgeport Superintendent of Schools, the head of special education for Bridgeport, a representative of the Bridgeport fire marshal’s office, and staff of the Bridgeport fire chief, in an effort to address the complainant’s concerns about student safety during fire drills.
5. In his motion to dismiss, the respondent contends that the December 7, 2000 meeting at issue, between himself and representatives of various city departments is not a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.
6. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
“[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.
7. Section 1-200(2), G.S.,
defines “meeting” to include:
"…any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, 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. After consideration of the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the complainant, it is found that the appeal in this matter was timely filed, and that, on December 7, 2000, the respondent met with the several city officials described in paragraph 5, above; and that the complainant was specifically excluded from such meeting.
9. It is concluded that the meeting(s) of December 7, 2000, conducted by the respondent assistant city attorney was not a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., to which the complainant had a right to attend pursuant to the FOI Act. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.
Consequently, the following order by the Commission is hereby recommended:
1. The action of the respondent in this matter is confirmed and the complaint is hereby dismissed without a hearing pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 23, 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:
Robin Fugiero
470 Thorne Street
Bridgeport, CT 06606
Arthur C. Laske, III, Assistant City Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City of Bridgeport
c/o John H. Barton, Esq.
999 Broad Street - 2nd floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-038/FD/paj/05/25/2001