FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Judith A. Herkimer, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-063 | ||
|
Gordon M. Ridgeway, First Selectman, Town of Cornwall; William Earl Brecher and Kenneth C. Baird, as members of the Board of Selectmen, Town of Cornwall; and Board of Selectmen, Town of Cornwall, |
|||
| Respondents | October 9, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 3, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that the respondent board was scheduled to hold a regular meeting on February 4, 2002 at 7:30 p.m., in the library’s public meeting room located in the town hall of Cornwall.
3. It is found that the complainant arrived at the town hall at approximately 7:20 p.m. on February 4, 2002 and found that the building was locked and that there was no notice posted on the door of the building indicating the status of the meeting.
4. It is found that on February 5, 2002, the complainant was informed by the respondent first selectman that the venue for the meeting was changed and that the meeting was held in the library of the Consolidated School.
5. By letter dated February 14, 2002 and filed on February 15, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to post notice on the door and on a town’s unofficial website of the change of venue for the meeting and by conducting business at the meeting that was not on the agenda that was posted on the website.
6. The complainant contends that before attempting to attend the February 4, 2002 meeting, she referred to a number of sources to ensure that there were no changes regarding the meeting, which sources included the unofficial website of the town that indicated that the meeting was to be held at 7:30 p.m. at the town hall on February 4, 2002. The complainant further contended that the meeting notice provided as evidence at the hearing by the respondent was not the notice that was on file with the town clerk or the secretary of state.
7. Section 1-225(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[t]he chairperson or secretary of any such public agency of any political subdivision of the state shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year, with the clerk of such subdivision the schedule of regular meetings of such public agency for the ensuing year, and no such meeting of any such public agency shall be held sooner than thirty days after such schedule has been filed.
8. Section 1-228, G.S., provides that:
[t]he public agency may adjourn any regular or special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum may so adjourn from time to time. If all members are absent from any regular meeting the clerk or the secretary of such body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place and shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in section 1-225, for special meetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings. A copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted on or near the door of the place where the regular or special meeting was held, within twenty-four hours after the time of the adjournment.
9. Section 1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
Notice of each special meeting of every public agency . . . either house thereof or any committee thereof, 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. Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the special meeting . . . 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.
10. It is found that on or about January 24, 2002, the respondents decided to change the venue of its February 4, 2002 regular meeting and filed a notice and agenda with respect to that change with the town clerk on January 31, 2002, which met the notice requirements of §1-225(d), G.S., for notice of a special meeting.
11. It is also found, however, that the respondents technically violated §1-228, G.S., when they failed to post the notice of the adjournment on or near the door of the place where the regular meeting was held, within the twenty-four hours.
12. It is also found that the website the complainant referred to is not owned or operated by the town of Cornwall and that the respondents have no control over whether the information is post in a timely manner or even posted at all.
13. It is found, however, that the respondents, having recognized that Cornwall residents rely on the unofficial website for information about town government, provides information to the website’s operator related to town business and provided the notice and agenda for the February 4, 2002 special meeting.
14. It is further found that the information was posted in a timely manner but the website was revised to include a new page on which information regarding meetings and their agenda was posted. The complainant apparently was not aware of that revision and did not refer to that page when she checked the site for changes regarding the February 4, 2002 meeting.
15. Notwithstanding the findings in paragraphs 13 through 15, above, it is found that the FOI Act does not require the respondents to provide notice of its meeting or the agenda on websites.
16. In her complaint, the complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty.
The Commission, in its discretion, declines to impose such penalty.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall comply with the requirements of §1-228, G.S., with respect to the adjournment of regular meetings.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Judith A. Herkimer
32 Warren Hill Road
Cornwall Bridge, CT 06754
Gordon M. Ridgeway, First Selectman,
Town of Cornwall; William Earl Brecher and
Kenneth C. Baird, as members of the Board of
Selectmen, Town of Cornwall; and
Board of Selectmen, Town of Cornwall
c/o Perley H. Grimes, Jr., Esq.
Cramer & Anderson LLP
46 West Street, PO Box 278
Litchfield, CT 06759-0278
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-063/FD/paj/10/11/2002