FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 20, 2008, 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 First Selectman and the Board of Selectmen are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated and filed October 12, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the First Selectman violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”) by forming the Citizens Building Committee, which then held secret meetings.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties against the First Selectman.

 

3.      It is found that on or around May 29, 2007, the First Selectman formed the Citizens Building Committee, which was comprised of eight individuals, who were private citizens.  It is further found that the purpose of such committee was to assess, analyze and discuss a high school building project.  

 

4.      It is concluded that Citizens Building Committee was a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., during its existence.

 

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

 

[a]ny person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, expect 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 . . . .

 

6.      It is found that between May 2007 and October 2007 the Citizens Building Committee met several times.  It is further found that sometime in late October 2007 the Citizens Building Committee disbanded. 

 

7.      It is found that the complainant first had notice in fact of the meetings described in paragraph 6, above, on August 16, 2007.  It is further found that the complainant filed his complaint in this case on October 12, 2007, more than thirty days from having notice in fact that the Citizens Building Committee was conducting meetings. 

 

8.      Accordingly, it is concluded that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the August 16, 2007 meeting of the Citizens Building Committee or those meetings occurring prior to August 16, 2007, pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S.

 

9.      It is found that during the week preceding October 9, 2007, the Citizens Building Committee convened one meeting.  Accordingly, it is concluded that because the complaint in this case was filed within thirty days of such meeting, the Commission has jurisdiction over this meeting. 

 

10.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides that:

 

[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.  The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and 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.

 

11.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines meeting as follows:

 

. . . 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. 

12.  Section 1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[n]otice 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 . . . .

13.  It is found that the complainant attempted to ascertain when and where the meetings of the Citizens Building Committee would be held, so that he could attend such meetings, but was informed that the meetings of said committee were not open to the public.

 

14.  It is found that the meeting of the Citizens Building Committee conducted during the week preceding October 9, 2007 was a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

15.  It is found that the Citizens Building Committee did not vote during the meeting it conducted in the week preceding October 9, 2007. 

 

16.  It is found that the Citizens Building Committee failed to file a notice of the meeting it conducted during the week preceding October 9, 2007, and failed to file minutes of such meeting. 

 

17.  It is concluded that the Citizens Building Committee violated §1-225, G.S., by holding an unnoticed special meeting and by not preparing minutes for said meeting.

 

18.  It is concluded that the respondents First Selectman and Board of Selectmen did not violate the FOI Act by forming the respondent Citizens Building Committee, as alleged in the complaint.

 

19.  The Commission declines to consider the imposition of a civil penalty.

 Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, no order by the Commission is hereby recommended. 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 11, 2008.

 

________________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Paul Fuchs  

21 Swanswood Lane

Old Lyme, CT 06371

           

Timothy C. Griswold,

First Selectman, Town of

Old Lyme; Board of Selectmen,

Town of Old Lyme; and

Citizens Building Committee,

Town of Old Lyme 

c/o Marylin C. Clarke, Esq.

Attorney At Law

20 Lyme Street

Old Lyme, CT 06371

 

 

 

___________________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-547FD/sw/6/13/2008