FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

   

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 29, 2008, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared 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.  By letter dated June 23, 2008 and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“Commission”) on June 25, 2008, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by “not filing agendas and minutes for meetings of the search committee whose task it is to find a new public works foreman.”

 

2.  Section 1-200, G.S., states in relevant parts:

 

(1)  “Public agency” or “agency” means: (A) Any executive, administrative or legislative office of the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official…. (emphasis added)

 

(2) “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. “Meeting” does not include:  Any meeting of a personnel search committee for executive level employment candidates.… (emphasis added)

 

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

 

A notice of appeal shall be filed not later than thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed not later than thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held. 

 

4.  Prior to October 1, 2008, §1-225(a) and (c), G.S., stated respectively in relevant parts:  

 

The 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.

 

      ….

 

The agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency, except for the General Assembly, shall be available to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer, (1) in such agency's regular office or place of business, and (2) in the office of the Secretary of the State for any such public agency of the state, in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state or in the office of the clerk of each municipal member of any multitown district or agency.

 

5.  It is found that the respondent did not file any notice, agendas or minutes for its three gatherings that took place, one in late January 2008, and the others on February 6 and 7, 2008. It is also found that all three members of the respondent attended each of the three gatherings. The late January gathering was to review applications for a new public works foreman, resulting in narrowing the field from nineteen applications to seven. The gatherings in February were to interview the seven candidates, and after the last interview on February 7, 2008, to determine which candidate to recommend to the Board of Public Works.

 

6.  It is found that the complainants received notice in fact of general information suggesting gatherings of the respondent on June 19, 2008, when complainant Garrison attended a meeting of the Board of Public Works and the respondent reported the conclusions of its search. The complainants did not receive specific information concerning the dates of the three gatherings of the respondent which took place in January and February 2008 until the day of the hearing in this matter. Accordingly, the complainants filed their June 23, 2008 complaint well within thirty days of receiving the June 19, 2008 notice in fact that a gathering or gatherings were held.   

 

7.  It is therefore concluded that the Commission has jurisdiction with regard to the allegations of the June 23, 2008 complaint.

 

8.  At the hearing, counsel for the respondent argued that: a) the respondent is not a public agency; and b) the search was for an executive level employment candidate.

 

9.  It is found that the First Selectman created the respondent, because his own son was one of nineteen candidates for the position of public works foreman. But for this conflict of interest, the First Selectman himself would have performed the duties performed in this special case by the respondent. Members of the respondent referred to themselves as serving on a “panel.” It is also found that the respondent, having performed its assigned task, has gone out of existence.    

 

 10.  It is further found that the town Charter authorizes the Board of Selectmen to create “boards, commissions, agencies, offices, departments…”, but also states that the First Selectman “may appoint subcommittees and may assign and delegate duties…to officials responsible to the First Selectman….”       

 

11.  It is further found that the public works foreman is, in effect, a third level position. The public works foreman reports to the Public Works Director, who, in turn, reports to the First Selectman. The salary of the public works foremen is $60,000 per year, plus overtime. He supervises sixteen people, but does so under the supervision of the Public Works Director. The public works foreman administers the Department of Public Works only when the Public Works Director is absent.     

 

12.  It is concluded that, as a committee created by an official of a town, the respondent is unambiguously a public agency within the direct terms of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

13.  Based upon the findings of fact in paragraph 5, above, it is concluded that the three gatherings were “proceeding[s]” of the respondent, and also “assembl[ies] of a quorum of a multi-member public agency,” pursuant to §1-200(2), G.S.   

 

14.  Based upon the findings of fact in paragraph 11, above, it is also concluded that the public works foreman is, as his title infers, not employed at an executive level and, when the candidates for this position were considered, the personnel search committee was not considering candidates for executive level employment, as that term is used in §1-200(2), G.S.

  

15.  Based upon the conclusions in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, it is finally concluded that the gatherings, one in late January 2008, and the others on February 6 and 7, 2008 were meetings of the respondent, pursuant to §1-200(2), G.S. All FOIA requirements for meetings were applicable (notice, openness and minutes). The meetings of the respondent in late January 2008 and on February 6 and 7, 2008 violated the requirements of §1-225, G.S., as alleged in the complaint.    

 

At the hearing, there was testimony that the members of the respondent demonstrated considerable independence by recommending a candidate for public works foreman who was not the son of the First Selectman. There was also un-rebutted testimony that this result surprised many persons who participate in and/or follow the town government of Seymour. 

 

Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, and the additional fact that the respondent has gone out of existence, no order is recommended by the Commission. 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting

of November 12, 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:

 

Lauren Garrison and

The New Haven Register

40 Sargent Drive

New Haven, CT 06511

 

 Search Committee,

Town of Seymour

c/o George R. Temple, Esq.

241 Coram Avenue

Shelton, CT 06484

 

 

 

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-426FD/sw/11/21/2008