In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION


Mario A. Sarlo et al.,


Complainants Docket #FIC 86-93




Mayor of the City and Town of Waterbury and Board of Public Works of the City and Town of Waterbury,


Respondents May 14, 1986


The above captioned matter was scheduled for hearing April 22, 1986, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.


After consideration of the entire record the following facts are found:


1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of section 1-18a(a), G.S.


2. By letter filed with the Commission April 4, 1986, the complainants alleged that the respondents filed an improper agenda for the meeting of March 18, 1986.


3. The complainants further alleged that, at that meeting, there was no motion made to add to the agenda as new business the agency's consideration of and vote upon the request of Joseph Calabrese to extend Newbury Street for approximately 100 feet.


4. The complainants specifically withdrew a third basis for their complaint which was set forth in their letter.


Docket #FIC 86-93 page 2


5. At the meeting of March 18, 1986, the respondents voted unanimously to suspend the regular order of business in order to hear members of the public.


6. Joseph Calabrese appeared before the respondents to ask permission to lengthen Newbury Street at his own expense.


7. He was informed that his request would be taken up at the regular meeting.


8. The respondents voted to return to the regular order of business.


9. Immediately thereafter, upon motion of Commissioner Lombardo, it was voted unanimously to approve the request of Joseph Calabrese to extend Newbury Street for approximately one hundred (100) feet, with no expense to the city and under the supervision of the city engineer.


10. The agenda for the meeting in question contained no item referring to consideration of a request to extend Newbury Street.


11. 1-21, G.S., provides in relevant part that "upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of a public agency present and voting, any subsequent business not included in . . filed agendas may be considered and acted upon at such meetings".


12. The respondents contended that the vote to suspend the regular order of business was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 1-21, G.S.


13. It is found that the vote to suspend the regular order of business was not sufficiently specific to satisfy the requirement of a two-thirds vote to consider and act upon business not included on the agenda, which is set forth at 1-21, G.S.


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


1. The vote taken by the respondents to approve the extension of Newbury Street on March 18, 1986, is hereby declared null and void.


Docket #FIC86-93 page 3


Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of May 14, 1986.


Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission