FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Stephen M. Feinstein, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2001-560 | ||
|
Third Taxing District of the City of Norwalk, |
|||
| Respondents | November 13, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 20, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared. The parties stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC2002-303; Stephen M. Feinstein v. Third Taxing District of the City of Norwalk. The respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint based on the complainant’s failure to appear personally, is hereby denied.
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. It is found that the complainant is a member of the three-member respondent district.
3. By letter dated and filed with the Commission on December 21, 2001, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by:
a) failing to deliver notice of a December 21, 2001 special meeting of the respondent [hereinafter “the meeting”] to the complainant’s home;
b) failing to follow more stringent notice requirements adopted by the respondent with respect to the meeting; and
c) scheduling the meeting at a time inconvenient for the complainant, such time “designed to thwart [the complainant’s] input…”
In his complaint, the complainant stated that he nevertheless intended to attend the meeting, but asked that the Commission declare null and void all actions taken at the meeting.
4. It is found that the complainant attended the meeting on December 21, 2001, and participated as a member of the respondent. It is also found that, during the meeting, the respondent voted unanimously to renew district insurance and voted two to one, with the complainant in opposition, to add a meeting to the schedule of the respondent. It is further found that, during the meeting, the respondent voted two to one, with the complainant in opposition, not to renew the employment contract of the electrical department general manager.
5. It is concluded that the complainant has not alleged violations of the FOI Act within the allegations as described in paragraphs 3.b and 3.c, above. Accordingly, such allegations shall not be considered herein.
6. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 3.a, above, §1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
…written notice [of special meetings] shall be delivered to the usual place of abode of each member of the public agency so that the same is received prior to such special meeting. The requirement of delivery of such written notice may be dispensed with as to any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the clerk or secretary of the public agency a written waiver of delivery of such notice. Such waiver may be given by telegram. The requirement of delivery of such written notice may also be dispensed with as to any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.
7. It is found that the respondent typically notified the complainant of its special meetings at his place of business, without objection from the complainant.
8. It is found that the complainant received written notice of the meeting at his place of business prior to the meeting, and that, therefore, the complainant had actual notice of the meeting prior to the convening of such meeting.
9. It is concluded that the purpose of the statute described in paragraph 6, above, is to ensure that members of public agencies are aware of upcoming special meetings. In this case, although it is found that the complainant had actual notice of the meeting, and did in fact attend the meeting, it is nevertheless concluded that the respondent technically violated §1-225(d), G.S., by failing to deliver to the complainant’s home written notice of the special meeting, within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S.
10. It is found that, as of the date of the hearing in this matter, the respondent now delivers notices of special meetings to the complainant both at his place of abode and at his place of business.
11. The Commission declines to declare null and void the actions taken at the meeting.
Based on the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order by the Commission is recommended.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 13, 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:
Stephen M. Feinstein
c/o Timothy E. Cox, Esq.
Five Myrtle Street
Norwalk, CT 06855
Third Taxing District of the
City of Norwalk
c/o Elizabeth A.B. Suchy, Esq. and
Frank W. Murphy, Esq.
Tierney, Zullo, Flaherty & Murphy, PC
134 East Avenue, PO Box 2028
Norwalk, CT 06851 and
Lawrence P. Dennin, Jr., Esq. and
Christopher J. Jarboe, Esq.
Lovejoy and Rimer, PC
65 East Avenue, PO Box 390
Norwalk, CT 06852-0390
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-560/FD/paj/11/19/2002