FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Bradshaw Smith, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-253 | |
|
Stephen T. Cassano,
Chairman, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September 12, 2001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 24, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, contested case docket #FIC 2001-297, Bradshaw Smith v. Stephen T. Cassano, Chairman, Capitol Region Council of Governments; and Capitol Region Council of Governments was consolidated with the above captioned matter.
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 of complaint dated and filed on May 23, 2001, the
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated
the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by discussing and voting on items
that were never on the agenda for the respondent council’s April 25, 2001
meeting. The complainant requested that the Commission:
a.
find that the actions
of the respondents are without foundation;
b.
[issue] a civil
penalty; and
c.
[issue] an order
[that the respondents] henceforth comply with chapter 14 of the Connecticut
General Statutes.
3. Section 1-225(c), G.S., provides in relevant:
the
agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency . . . shall be available
to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the
meetings to which they refer, in such agency’s regular office or place of
business . . . Upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of a
public agency present and voting, any subsequent business not included in such
filed agendas may be considered and acted upon at such meetings.
4. It is found that on April 25, 2001, the respondent council
held a regular meeting during which its members discussed and voted to
reaffirm the council’s existing policy on public comments at its meetings.
5. It is found that the discussion and vote took place under the
respondent council’s agenda item #4 “Report of the Chairman and Executive
Director” (hereinafter “report”). It
is found that as a part of the report, the chairman mentioned a letter he
received from the complainant concerning the respondent council’s policy on
public comments at its meetings. In
an attempt to make clear the existing policy, the respondent council voted to
reaffirm the policy as indicated in paragraph 4, above.
6. At the hearing on this matter the complainant contended that
because the respondents failed to specifically list, as a separate agenda
item, the public comment matter, the respondent council was required to add
the discussion of that matter to the agenda by first obtaining a two-thirds
vote of the members present and voting.
7. It is found that based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the public comment discussion was a part of the “Report of Chairman and Executive Director”, a matter which was duly noticed on the meeting agenda. Consequently, it is found that it was not necessary for the respondent council to take a two-thirds vote to add the public comment matter to the agenda, as such matter was not “subsequent business” not included in the agenda, within the meaning of §1-225(c), G.S.
8. Therefore it is concluded that, under the facts and
circumstances of this case, the respondents 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. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 12, 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:
Bradshaw Smith
23 Ludlow Road
Windsor, CT 06095
Stephen T. Cassano, Chairman
Capitol Region Council of Governments;
and Capitol Region Council of Governments
241 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-253/FD/paj/09/18/2001