FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Bijan Bahramian,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2000-321

Frank J. Kogut; Noreen A. Tow,
as members, Board of Education,
Meriden Public Schools; and
Board of Education, Meriden
Public Schools,

 

 

Respondents

June 13, 2001

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 10, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 June 22, 2000 and filed on June 26, 2000 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents and the superintendent of Meriden Public Schools (hereinafter “superintendent”) violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by conducting unnoticed meetings to negotiate the terms of the superintendent’s new contract.  The complainant requested that the Commission impose the maximum civil penalty against the respondents and the superintendent.

 

3.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that the Commission should have named the superintendent as a party respondent in this matter.

 

4.      Section 1-21j-30 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provide in relevant part that:

 

(a)    In issuing the notice of hearing described in section 1-21j-34 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the executive director or his or her designee shall designate as a party any person known to the commission whose legal rights, duties or privileges are required by statute to be determined by a commission proceeding and who is required by law to be a party in a commission proceeding, and any person whose participation as a party is then deemed to be necessary to the proper disposition of such proceeding.

 

(b)   Subsequent to the issuance of the notice of hearing, the commission or the presiding officer shall grant a person status as a party in a contested case if the commission or the presiding officer finds that: (1) such person has submitted a written petition to the commission and served copies on all parties, at least five (5) days before the date of hearing; and (2) the petition states facts that demonstrate that the petitioner’s legal rights, duties or privileges shall be specifically affected by the commission’s decision in the contested case.  The five-day requirement in this subsection may be waived at any time before or after commencement of the hearing by the commission or the presiding officer on a showing of good cause.

 

5.      It is found that the superintendent is not a member of the respondent board and that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the superintendent was involved in planning the alleged unnoticed meetings.

 

6.      It is also found that the complainant failed to demonstrate that, at the time of the complaint in this matter, the commission knew of any facts establishing that the superintendent’s legal rights, duties or privileges were required by statute to be determined by the hearing in this matter, that she was required by law to be a party in this matter or that she was necessary to the proper disposition of this matter.

 

7.      It is further found that no additional facts have come to the attention of the Commission to establish that the superintendent’s legal rights, duties or privileges are required by statute to be determined by the hearing in this matter, that she is required by law to be a party in this matter or that she is necessary to the proper disposition of this matter so as to require the adding of the superintendent as an additional party respondent.  Therefore, the complainant’s request that she be made a party respondent in this matter is denied.

 

8.      With respect to the substance of the complainant’s complaint against the respondents, §1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[m]eeting means 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.

 

9.      Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies . . . shall be open to the public.”

 

10.   Section 1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

notice of each special meeting of every public agency . . . shall be given not less that twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place . . . in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state . . . The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.

 

11.   It is found that on May 30, 2000, the respondents Frank J. Kogut and Noreen A. Tow met with the superintendent at Friendly’s restaurant to have breakfast and to remind the superintendent that she should be prepared to present any terms she would like included in her contract at the respondent board’s next meeting (hereinafter “the Friendly’s gathering”).

 

12.  It is found that the respondents did not file a notice of the Friendly’s gathering with the Meriden Town Clerk.

 

13.  It is found that the respondent board is a nine member board and that Kogut and Tow did not constitute a quorum of the respondent board.

 

14.  It is therefore concluded that the Friendly’s gathering did not constitute a convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, or communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

15.  It is found that Kogut and Tow met with the superintendent without the knowledge of the other members of the respondent board or its authority and were not acting in their official capacity as board members.

 

16.  It is also found that while the Friendly’s gathering lasted approximately thirty minutes, the discussion between Kogut and Tow and the superintendent that pertained to the superintendent’s contract lasted less than ten minutes. The contract discussion consisted of a reminder, from Kogut and Tow, that the superintendent’s contract would be discussed at the next meeting of the respondent board and the superintendent mentioned some of the contract terms she wanted changed or added to the new contract.

 

17.  It is also found that neither Kogut nor Tow negotiated any terms of the contract with the superintendent, agreed to support any terms mentioned by the superintendent, nor did they report any of the substance of their discussion with the superintendent to the respondent board.

 

18.  It is further found that Kogut, Tow and the superintendent spent most of their time eating breakfast and talking with other friends at the restaurant about matters unrelated to the business of the respondent board.

 

19.  It is concluded therefore that the Friendly’s gathering did not constitute a “hearing” or “other proceeding” of the respondent board within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

20.  It is concluded therefore, that the Friendly’s gathering did not constitute a “meeting” of the respondent board within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., and that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act under the facts and circumstances of this case.

 

21.  Accordingly, the complainant’s request for the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents is denied.

 

22.  On April 16, 2000 the complainant submitted a brief to the undersigned hearing officer, along with copies of newspaper articles and an affidavit.

 

23.  It is found that the complainant attempted to submit the newspaper articles described in paragraph 22, above, during the hearing on this matter, at which time the hearing officer determined that they were not relevant and declined to admit them into the evidentiary record, over the complainant’s numerous and vehement objections.

 

24.  With respect to the affidavit described in paragraph 22, above, it is found that the hearing officer did not request or grant permission to either party to submit additional exhibits or written testimony following the hearing on this matter.

 

25.  Consequently, the newspaper articles and the affidavit described in paragraph 22, above, have not been considered in this case.

 

26.  Furthermore, it is found that during the hearing on this matter, the complainant was continuously rude to Commission counsel, argumentative with the hearing officer and failed to follow the directives of both the hearing officer and Commission counsel. 

 

27.  It is further found that the complainant’s behavior described in paragraph 26, above, was so volatile that the hearing had to be recessed and continued in the presence of a state trooper.

 

28.  It is further concluded that the complainant’s behavior during and after the hearing on this matter constituted an abuse of the Commission’s administrative process.

 

 

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.

 

2.      The Commission notes that the complainant’s conduct at the hearing was entirely inappropriate and unnecessary.  The Commission strongly admonishes the complainant for such conduct.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 13, 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:

 

Bijan Bahramian

129 Lydale Place

Meriden, CT 06450

 

Frank J. Kogut; Noreen A. Tow,

as members, Board of Education,

Meriden Public Schools; and

Board of Education, Meriden

Public Schools,

c/o Thomas B. Mooney, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin LLP

One American Row

Hartford, CT 06103-2819

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2000-321/FD/paj/06/18/2001