FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 29, 2003, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.         By letter dated February 6, 2003, and filed on February 10, 2003, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent had violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by holding unnoticed and secret meetings on January 24^th and 25^th, 2003 [hereinafter “meetings”], in violation of §§1-225(a), (d) and (g), G.S. 

 

3.  The complainant requested that this Commission order the respondent to attend an FOI workshop for the alleged violations as described in paragraph 2, above.

 

            4.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“Meeting” means 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. . . .

 

5.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.

6.  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…clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office…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….

 

7.  Section 1-225(g), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[I]n determining the time within which or by when a notice, agenda, record of votes or minutes of a special meeting or an emergency special meeting are required to be filed under this section, Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and any day on which the office of the agency, the Secretary of the State or the clerk of the applicable political subdivision or the clerk of each municipal member of any multitown district or agency, as the case may be, is closed, shall be excluded. 

 

8.  It is concluded that §1-225(g), G.S., by its terms applies to special meetings, and sets forth which days are excluded for purposes of filing requirements, a matter not at issue in this appeal.  The obligation to file special meeting notices is set forth in §1-225(d), G.S.  Accordingly, the complainant’s allegation that the respondent violated §1-225(g), G.S., shall not be addressed herein.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent held what it considered workshops on January 24^th and 25^th, 2003, during which it discussed matters over which the respondent had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

10.  It is concluded that the respondent’s workshops of January 24^th and 25^th, 2003, constituted “special” meetings, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

11.  It is found that the agenda for the meetings listed a number of items that were, in fact, discussed at such meetings.

 

12.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent admitted that it did not file notices for the special meetings.

 

13.  The respondent also contends that prior to the January 24^th meeting, it conferred with a representative of the Education Connection, an organization that facilitates workshops, to arrange the meetings.

 

14.  The respondent further contends that prior to the January 25^th meeting, the respondent conferred with a representative of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) regarding any requirements.

 

            15.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent maintained that it did not receive any indication from either the Education Center or CABE that the meetings must be noticed as special meetings.  The respondent further maintained that it did not know that the agendas needed to be posted as special meetings.

 

            16.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent maintained that since substantially all the business it conducted at the meetings could have been conducted in executive session, it was therefore not necessary to file a notice for such meetings.

 

            17.  It is concluded that notices of the meetings were not filed at the town clerk’s at least twenty-four hours in advance of such meetings as required by §1-225(d), G.S.

 

            18.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(d), G.S.

           

            19.  It is found that the meetings were not open to the public within the meaning of §1-225(a), G.S., since the respondent failed to file timely notice of such meetings.

 

            20.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S.

 

            22.  The Commission, in its discretion, declines to impose the remedy suggested by the complainant, as described in paragraph 3, above.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

 

            1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-225(a) and (d), G.S.

 

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:

 

Russell Strilowich

PO Box 8886

New Fairfield, CT  06812-8886

 

Board of Education,

New Fairfield Public Schools

c/o Donald W. Strickland, Esq.

Siegel, O’Connor, Zangari,

O’Donnell & Beck, P.C.

150 Trumbull Street

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-063/FD/abg/12/11/2003