FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Francis S. Rotella,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-186

City Council, City of Meriden,

 

 

Respondents

August 8, 2001

 

 

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 11, 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 April 5, 2001 and filed on April 6, 2001, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by holding a city council meeting on March 8, 2001 without:

 

a.       “proper notice”; and

b.      “proper filing of a[n] agenda.”

 

The complainant further alleged that the respondent inappropriately used an agenda from a March 7, 2001 meeting that was a “carry-over agenda” from a March 5, 2001 meeting.  The complainant requested that the Commission declare all actions taken at the March 8, 2001 meeting null and void.

 

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

 

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 secretary or clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office…The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted….  

 

4.      It is found that the respondent planned to hold a regular meeting on March 5, 2001, which it cancelled due to a snowstorm.  The respondent then scheduled and filed notice of a special meeting for March 7, 2001 to conduct the business that was on the agenda for the March 5, 2001 regular meeting.  The notice of the March 7, 2001 special meeting read, in relevant part:

 

the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of Monday, March 5, 2001 has been rescheduled to Wednesday, March 7, 2001 at 7:30 p. m. in the City Council Chambers due to the snowstorm on Monday, March 5, 2001.  Attached is the agenda for the postponed meeting from March 5, 2001.

 

5.      It is found that respondent cancelled the March 7, 2001 special meeting and timely filed notice with the city clerk’s office of a special meeting to be held on March 8, 2001.  The notice of the March 8, 2001 special meeting read, in relevant part:

 

the regularly scheduled City Council meeting of Monday, March 5, 2001 has been rescheduled to Thursday, March 8, 2001 at 6:30 p. m. in the City Council Chambers due to the snowstorm on Monday, March 5, 2001.  Attached is the agenda for the postponed meeting from March 5, 2001.

 

6.      It is found that notice of the cancelled March 5 and 7, 2001 meetings was timely posted on the city council meeting room and on the entrance door to the city hall.

 

7.       It is also found that the city clerk’s office timely posted notice of the March 8, 2001 special meeting.

 

8.      It is found that the respondent held the March 8, 2001 special meeting as planned, and used the agenda originally prepared for the March 5, 2001 regular meeting.  It is further found that only the business indicated on the March 5, 2001 agenda was conducted at the March 8, 2001 special meeting.

 

9.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent should have prepared an entirely new agenda for the March 8, 2001 special meeting and that use of the agenda prepared for the March 5, 2001 regular meeting did not constitute proper notice and filing of an agenda for the March 8, 2001 special meeting. 

 

10.   It is found that the respondent provided notice of the March 8, 2001 special meeting by timely filing a notice specifying the time, place and business to be transacted, within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S.

 

11.  It is also found that the respondent’s use of the agenda originally prepared for its March 5, 2001 regular meeting, at the March 8, 2001 special meeting, did not violate the notice and agenda provisions of §1-225(d), G.S.

 

12.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate the notice and agenda provisions of §1-225(d), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

13.  It is further found that during the respondent’s presentation of its case at the hearing in this matter, the complainant and his witness became increasingly agitated, argumentative and disruptive.  The complainant and his witness then walked out of the hearing prior to its conclusion.

 

14.  It is concluded that the complainant’s behavior during the hearing in this matter was inappropriate and entirely unacceptable.  Further, such conduct constitutes 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 admonishes the complainant for his inappropriate conduct at the hearing and reminds him that pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S., if the executive director of the commission has reason to believe that an appeal would perpetrate an injustice, or would constitute an abuse of the commission's administrative process, such appeal will not be scheduled for a hearing without the executive director seeking and obtaining leave of the commission.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 8, 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:

 

Francis S. Rotella

55 Willow Street, Apt. 304-S

Meriden, CT 06450

 

City Council, City of Meriden

c/o Lawrence J. Kendzior, Esq.

City of Meriden

Department of Law

142 East Main Street

Meriden, CT 06450-8022

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-186/FD/paj/08/13/2001