FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Gale
Courey Toensing and |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-225 |
|
|
Superintendent of
Schools, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 25, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This matter was heard as a contested case on June 20, 2001, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2001-224; Cynthia Hochswender and The Lakeville Journal v. Policy Subcommittee, Board of Education, Regional School District One. The case caption has been amended to reflect the accurate name of the respondent subcommittee.
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 May 4, 2001, and filed with the Commission on May 7, 2001, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by convening the May 3, 2001 special meeting of the respondent subcommittee prior to the start time indicated on the notice of such meeting.
3. Section 1-225, G.S., provides in relevant part:
(a) [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…(d) Notice of each special
meeting of every public agency…shall be given…by filing a notice of the
time and place thereof….
4. It is found that the respondent subcommittee conducted a special meeting on May 3, 2001 [hereinafter “the meeting”]. It is found that the notice of the meeting indicated a start time of 3:00 P.M.
5. It is found that all members of the respondent subcommittee gathered at the place set for the meeting and, without taking note of the time, began the meeting at approximately 2:50 P.M.
6. It is found that, shortly before 3:00 P.M., the complainant Toensing arrived at the meeting, observed that it was in progress, and attended the remainder of the meeting. It is also found that, at the conclusion of the meeting, the complainant Toensing approached the chairman of the respondent subcommittee, questioned him about the discussion of the respondent subcommittee during the meeting, and received answers to her questions.
7. It is found that no action was taken by the respondent subcommittee at the meeting, which was held to discuss proposed policy changes of the board of education of Regional School District One. It is found that the respondent subcommittee subsequently prepared a draft of proposed policy changes for such board’s review and approval, which draft is available for public inspection.
8. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents conceded that the respondent subcommittee violated §1-225, G.S., by failing to wait until 3:00 P.M. to start the meeting. It is concluded that the respondent subcommittee thereby violated the FOI Act, as alleged in paragraph 2, above. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, however, it is found that such violation was inadvertent and not willful.
9. It is found that the respondent superintendent is not a member of the respondent subcommittee. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent superintendent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth, the respondent subcommittee shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225, G.S.
2. The complaint against the respondent superintendent is hereby dismissed.
3. The parties are encouraged to utilize the Commission’s ombudsman process in the future.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 25, 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:
Gale Courey Toensing and
Waterbury Republican
138 Warren Turnpike
Falls Village, CT 06031
Superintendent of Schools,
Regional School District One;
and Policy Subcommittee, Board
of Education, Regional School
District One
c/o Thomas N. Sullivan, Esq.
Sullivan, Schoen, Campane and Connon, LLC
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-4286
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-225/FD/paj/07/30/2001