FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 12, 2003, at which time the complainants 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.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on March 4, 2003, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by convening, sometime prior to January 20, 2003, a meeting that was neither noticed nor open to the public.  The complainants requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents. 

 

           

 

 

3.  Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“[a]ny person…wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the [FOI] Act may appeal therefrom to the [FOI] Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held….” 

 

            4.  It is found that the complainants received notice in fact of the alleged meeting on February 11, 2003, during a meeting of the respondent council.  It is further found that this complaint was filed within thirty days of the February 11, 2003, meeting.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

 

            5.  Section 1-225, G.S., in relevant part provides that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies…shall be open to the public….”

 

            6.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines “meeting" as:

 

“…any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power….”

 

            7.  It is found that the respondent council is a multimember public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.  It is further found that the respondent council consists of nine members, including the respondent mayor. 

 

            8.  It is found that, shortly before January 20, 2003, as a courtesy, the respondent mayor telephoned six of the other members of respondent council to inform them of his decision to change the chairmanships of two standing committees of the respondent council.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent mayor has authority to appoint chairpersons of the standing committees of the respondent council.  It is further found that the appointment of such chairpersons is not a matter over which the respondent council or the respondent members have supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

 

 

 

 

 

10.  Accordingly, it is found that the telephone conversations described in paragraph 8, above, were not communications by or to a quorum within the definition of “meeting”, as set forth in §1-200(2), G.S. 

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that 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 October 8, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Gladys Alcedo and The Day

47 Eugene O’Neill Drive

PO Box 1231

New London, CT  06320-1231

 

Frank O’Beirne, Jr., Mayor, Town of Groton;

Catherine Kolnaski, Member, Town Council, Town

of Groton; Thomas J. Skrmetti, Member, Town

Council, Town of Groton; Harry A. Watson, Member,

Town Council, Town of Groton; Elissa T. Wright,

Member, Town Council, Town of Groton; Dolores E.

Hauber, Member, Town Council, Town of Groton;

Jackie Massett, Member, Town Council, Town of

Groton; Jeffrey A. Vary, Member, Town Council, Town

of Groton; John C. Wirzbicki, Member, Town Council,

Town of Groton; and Town Council, Town of Groton

c/o Michael P. Carey, Esq.

Suisman, Shapiro, Wool, Brennan,

Gray & Greenberg, P.C.

2 Union Plaza, Suite 200

PO Box 1591

New London, CT  06320

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-089/FD/abg/10/15/2003