FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Wanda L. Franek,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 86-303

 

East Hartford Emergency Medical Commission,

 

Respondent January 28, 1987

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 1, 1986, 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:

 

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on November 4, 1986 the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by holding a meeting on October 27, 1986 without the proper notice or agenda.

 

3. Specifically, the complainant claims that four of the nine commission members attended a meeting in Mayor McNulty's office without the proper notice or agenda as required by 1-21(a), G.S.

 

4. It is found that on October 27, 1986 members of various municipal agencies attended a presentation made by two ambulance services in the office of Mayor Robert McNulty.

 

5. It is found that the respondent is composed of nine members and that five members constitute a quorum.

 

6. It is further found that George Dayton, Thomas Dawson, Marylee Hickey and Henry Genga, all members of the respondent, attended the presentation in question.

 

Docket #FIC 86-303 Page 2

 

7. The respondent claims, however, that because there was not a quorum of its members at the presentation, this gathering did not constitute a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

8. It is found that the absence of a quorum does not determine whether the gathering in question was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

9. It is further found that the gathering was a proceeding of a public agency to discuss or act upon a matter over which it has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

 

10. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the attendance of the four members did not constitute a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

11. It is therefore concluded that the meeting in question was held in violation of the notice provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

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

 

1. The respondent shall henceforth comply with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

2. Prior to taking any action concerning the two ambulance services identified in paragraph 4 of the findings, above, the respondent shall ask both companies to make this presentation a second time, before the East Hartford Emergency Medical Commission.

 

3. Nothing herein shall be read to imply bad faith on the part of the respondent.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 28, 1987.

 

Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission