FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

John F. Carbone,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-164

Board of Finance, Town of Clinton,

 

 

Respondents

July 11, 2001

 

 

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 30, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint dated March 16, 2001 (with enclosure), filed with the Commission on March 21, 2001, and supplemented by e-mail dated April 3, 2001 and filed on April 4, 2001, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

a.  failing to file an agenda in advance of the respondent’s February 28, 2001 meeting; and

 

b.  discussing the complainant’s job performance in public during the February 28, 2001 meeting without prior notice to the complainant.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent held a “budget workshop” on February 28, 2001, which was attended by five of its members (hereinafter “workshop”).  Six full members and two alternates serve on the respondent.

 

            4.  It is found that the purpose of the workshop was to permit the Board of Education to make a presentation to the respondent on certain budgetary issues.

 

            5.  It is found that during the workshop there was some mention and brief discussion concerning the position of School Resource Officer (“SRO”), which position is currently held by the complainant.  It is concluded that such discussion constitutes “discussion concerning the … employment, performance, evaluation … or dismissal of a public … employee” within the meaning of §1-200(6), G.S.

 

            6.  It is found that no agenda was filed or notice of meeting given to the general public within twenty-four hours of the workshop.

 

            7.  The respondent contends that the workshop was not an official meeting because no votes were taken, and further, that workshops of this type are customarily held by the respondent for the purpose of allowing invited department heads to make their presentations.  The respondent further contends that typically, a formal public meeting, with notice to the public is convened after the conclusion of a workshop.

 

            8.  The complainant contends that his performance was discussed during the workshop and because he had no prior knowledge of the workshop, he was unable to attend and defend himself with respect to certain remarks made.  

 

            9.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines meeting as follows:

 

"Meeting" 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. [Emphasis added.]

 

            10.  It is found that the workshop was a “proceeding of a public agency”; it is also found that the workshop was a “convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency”; and, it is further found that during the workshop there was “communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency… to discuss … a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power ”.  [Emphasis added.]

 

            11.  Consequently, it is concluded that the workshop was a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

            12.  Section 1-225, G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

(a)     The meetings of all public agencies, except executive

       sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200,

       shall be open to the public.  [Emphasis added.]

 

(d)    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.

 

(e) 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. 

 

13.  With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the respondent failed to give notice to the public of the workshop by filing a notice of meeting within twenty-four hours of convening such workshop.

 

14.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-225(a), (d) and (e), G.S.

 

15.  With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that the matters addressed at the budget workshop concerning the position of SRO are matters appropriately addressed during the public portion of a meeting.  Further, the respondent is never required to address such matters in an executive session.  The respondent was therefore not obligated to provide the complainant any notice beyond that as described in paragraphs 13 and 14, above.

 

            16.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the complainant’s rights by discussing matters relating to the SRO position in public at the workshop.

 

            17.  However, because the respondent failed to give notice of the workshop in accordance with §§1-225(d) and (e), G.S., the complainant’s right to attend such workshop was violated.  Although there is no right to speak guaranteed by the FOI Act, the complainant certainly had a right to be present at, and to listen to the remarks made at the workshop. 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the notice provisions of §1-225, G.S., with respect to all budget workshops.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 11, 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:

 

John F. Carbone

c/o Angelo J. DeLeon

International Brotherhood of

Police Officers

3510 Main Street

Bridgeport, CT 06606

 

Board of Finance

Town of Clinton

54 East Main Street

Clinton, CT 06413-0174

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-164/FD/paj/07/16/2001