FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

This matter was heard as a contested case on November 10, 2003, 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.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on January 17, 2003, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to provide the public with adequate notice of the business to be transacted at the December 19, 2002 special meeting of the respondent commission, with respect to three agenda items.  The complainant asked that the respondents’ actions with respect to such items be declared 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 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….

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent commission held a special meeting on December 19, 2002 [hereinafter “the meeting”]. 

 

5.  It is found that the notice of the meeting included, among other items, the following:

 

“4.  8-24 Referral from Board of Selectmen – School Facilities and property to be incorporated into school facilities.

 

5.  8-24 Referral from Board of Selectmen – Property conveyance associated with school facilities.

 

6.  8-24 Referral from Board of Selectmen – Property acquisition not associated with school facility.” 

 

            6.  It is found that the Portland Board of Selectman referred the items described in paragraph 5, above, to the respondent commission pursuant to §8-24, G.S.

 

7.  Section 8-24, G.S., provides:

[n]o municipal agency or legislative body shall (1) locate, accept, abandon, widen, narrow or extend any street, bridge, parkway or other public way, (2) locate, relocate, substantially improve, acquire land for, abandon, sell or lease any airport, park, playground, school or other municipally owned property or public building, (3) locate or extend any public housing, development, redevelopment or urban renewal project, or (4) locate or extend public utilities and terminals for water, sewerage, light, power, transit and other purposes, until the proposal to take such action has been referred to the [planning and zoning] commission for a report.  Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, a municipality may take final action approving an appropriation for any proposal prior to the approval of the proposal by the commission pursuant to this section. The failure of the commission to report within thirty-five days after the date of official submission of the proposal to it for a report shall be taken as approval of the proposal.  In the case of the disapproval of the proposal by the commission the reasons therefor shall be recorded and transmitted to the legislative body of the municipality. A proposal disapproved by the commission shall be adopted by the municipality or, in the case of disapproval of a proposal by the commission subsequent to final action by a municipality approving an appropriation for the proposal and the method of financing of such appropriation, such final action shall be effective, only after the subsequent approval of the proposal by (A) a two-thirds vote of the town council where one exists, or a majority vote of those present and voting in an annual or special town meeting, or (B) a two-thirds vote of the representative town meeting or city council or the warden and burgesses, as the case may be. The provisions of this section shall not apply to maintenance or repair of existing property, public ways or buildings.

            8.  It is found that the respondent commission approved the referrals described in paragraph 5, above, which involved property acquisition for renovations on the high school and acquiring property to relocate the middle school.

 

            9.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the items described in paragraph 5, above, did not fairly apprise the public of the business to be transacted at the meeting because the general public is not sophisticated enough to realize that “8-24” refers to section 8-24 of the general statutes, and that the properties involved were not identified by address, owner, map or lot number, or by specific school facility.

 

            10.  It is found that, at the time of the meeting, the Town of Portland was involved in a widely known, controversial and costly public works project, involving school facilities. 

 

11.  It is found that the business to be transacted by the respondents with respect to the items described in paragraph 5, above, was whether to approve, disapprove, or not act upon three §8-24, G.S., referrals submitted by the Board of Selectmen.  It is further found that the notice of the meeting with respect to the items described in paragraph 5, above, fairly specified the business to be transacted at such meeting, within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S.  Accordingly, it is 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 December 10, 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:

 

Ivan A. Ramos

843 Thompson Street

Glastonbury, CT  06033

 

Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission,

Town of Portland; and Planning and Zoning

Commission, Town of Portland

c/o Duncan J. Forsyth, Esq.

Halloran & Sage

One Goodwin Square

225 Asylum Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-025/FD/abg/12/11/2003