FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Susan G. Kniep,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 88‑366

 

East Hartford Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition Subcommittee,

 

Respondent December 20, 1988

 

The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 24, 1988, 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 and conclusions of law are reached.

 

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

 

2. The respondent held a special meeting on August 24, 1988.

 

3. By letter of complaint dated September 7, 1988 and received by the Commission on September 9, 1988, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging:

 

a. that the notice of the August 24, 1988 meeting did not specify discussion or action which occurred regarding properties known as Linpro and Second North School; and

 

b. that the minutes of the August 24, 1988 meeting did not reflect discussion which occurred concerning Second North School.

 

4. It is found that the notice of the August 24, 1988 meeting lists among the agenda items "Update on appraisals."

 

Docket #FIC 88‑366 Page 2

 

5. It is found that the business transacted with respect to "Update on appraisals" included the selection of an appraiser for the Linpro property, and discussion of the reasons for a delay in the Second North School property appraisal.

 

6. It is also found that at the time of the August 24, 1988 meeting the respondent had within its jurisdiction or control, in addition to the Linpro and Second North School properties, numerous properties to which the agenda item "Update on appraisals" could reasonably apply.

 

7. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1‑21(a), G.S., by failing to specify in its notice of the August 24, 1988 meeting the business to be transacted at that meeting.

 

8. It is found that the minutes of the August 24, 1988 meeting do not reflect any discussion regarding the reasons for a delay in the Second North School property appraisal.

 

9. It is also found that the discussion at the August 24, 1988 meeting of the reasons for the delay in the Second North School property appraisal was limited to discussion of an illness in the appraiser's family.

 

10. It is concluded that under the circumstances of this case the respondent did not violate 1‑19(a), G.S., by failing to include the discussion described in paragraph 9 above in the minutes of its August 24, 1988 meeting.

 

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 act in strict compliance with the notice requirements of 1‑21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 20, 1988.

 

 

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission