FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

John V. Millo,

 
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2007-323

Board of Fire Commissioners,

City of Shelton,

 
  Respondent January 23, 2008
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 26, 2007, at which time the complainant and respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2007-322; John V. Millo v. Board of Fire Commissioners, City of Shelton.

 

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 May 30, 2007, and filed on May 31, 2007, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act at its May 22, 2007 meeting by discussing operational issues and the personal performance of fire fighters without those fire fighters being present at the meeting.  The complainant also alleged that the Officers Council failed to notice the meeting or post an agenda for the same and that neither the respondent nor the Officers Council made available the minutes for the May 22, 2007 meeting.

 

3.      It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on May 22, 2007, and that members of the Shelton Officers Council attended such meeting (hereinafter “special meeting”).

 

4.      It is found that the respondent properly noticed the special meeting on May 17, 2007, which notice provided the date, time and place of the meeting as well as the agenda which stated as follows:

 

Work Session with Officers Council – Long Term Planning of the Fire Department

 

5.      Section 1-200(6), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“Executive sessions” means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes:  (A)  Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting . . .

 

6.      It is found that while the general nature of the discussion held during the special meeting lead to discussions of the performances of the fire fighters, including the complainant, the discussion did not take place in executive session.

 

7.      It is concluded, therefore, that the FOI Act requires no other notice to the complainant than that described in paragraph 4, above, for the respondent’s special meeting.

 

8.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that the special meeting was a joint meeting of both the respondent and the Officers Council because a quorum of each was present at the meeting.

 

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

 

A quorum of the members of a public agency who are 
present at any event which has been noticed and conducted 
as a meeting of another public agency under the provisions 
of the Freedom of Information Act shall not be deemed to 
be holding a meeting of the public agency of which they are 
members as a result of their presence at such event.
 
            10.   It is found that the special meeting was noticed and conducted as a meeting of the respondent within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.
 
            11.   It is also concluded that the Officers Council was not holding a meeting as a result of the presence of a quorum of it members at the special meeting and was not required to file a notice, agenda or minutes for the special meeting.
 
            12.  With respect to the allegation that the respondent failed to make minutes of the May 22, 2007 meeting available, it is found that on November 21, 2007, the respondent filed a document with the clerk’s office that reflects the names of those who attended the special meeting, the call to order and the fact that the pledge of allegiance was recited.
 

            13.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., requires that "each such [public] agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.”

 

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

 

                          ...the votes of each member of any public agency upon any

                          issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing

                          and shall be made available for public inspection within

                          forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes

                          of the session at which taken, which minutes shall be

                          available for public inspection within seven days of the

                          session to which they refer.

 

            15.  It is found that the respondent did not approve the document described in paragraph 12, above, as its minutes or otherwise designate it as such so as to apprise the public that such document was intended to serve as the minutes for the special meeting.  Furthermore, it is found that the document described in paragraph 12, above, does not fairly apprise the public of the business conducted at the special meeting such as the subject of business discussed, motions that were made and voted on, if that occurred, or when the meeting adjourned.  It is found that from reading the document described in paragraph 12, above, the only occurrence at the special meeting was the reciting of the pledge of allegiance.

 

            16.  It is found that the document described in paragraph 12, above, does not reasonably satisfy the minutes requirements set forth in §§1-210(a) and 1-225(a), G.S.

 

17.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-
225(a), G.S., by failing to make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its May 22, 2007 special meeting and by failing to reduce any votes to writing and making such available for public inspection.
 

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

 

1.      The respondent shall generate minutes of the special meeting described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the findings, above, which minutes, at a minimum, shall record the time, date and place of the special meeting, the members of the respondent that attended the meeting, the subject of the discussion, any motions that were made and any votes taken.  A copy of such minutes shall be provided to the complainant, free of charge, within 7 days of the notice of the final decision in the case.  

 

2.      Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-225(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 2008.

 

 

________________________________

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:

 

John V. Millo

Chief, Fire Department

City of Shelton

54 Hill Street

Shelton, CT 06484

           

Board of Fire Commissioners,

City of Shelton

54 Hill Street

Shelton, CT 06484

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-323FD/paj/1/28/2008