FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Edward R.
Bradley,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-40
Wallingford Town
Council of the Town of Wallingford,
Respondent May 14, 1986
The above-captioned matter was
scheduled to be heard as a contested case with #FIC 86-39, Ronald M. Gregory
vs. Wallingford Town Council, on February 28, 1986, because of the similarity
of the subject matter. On February 28,
1986 the complainants appeared and requested a continuance and the matter was
continued to April 4, 1986, at which time the parties appeared and presented
evidence and argument on the complaint.
Thereafter, the matter was continued to April 25, 1986, at which time
the parties appeared and presented additional evidence 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. The
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because of the failure of the Freedom
of Information Commission to comply with the requirements set forth at
1-21i(b), G.S.
3. Section
1-21i(b), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Said commission shall, within twenty
days after receipt of the notice of appeal, hear such appeal after due notice
to the parties and shall decide the appeal within thirty days after such
hearing.
4.
Notice was sent to all parties on February 21, 1986 for the scheduled hearing
on February 28, 1986.
5. On
February 28, 1986 only the complainants appeared to request a continuance.
6. The
continuance was granted and the matter was continued to April 4, 1986, and
thereafter to April 25, 1986.
Docket #FIC
86-40 page 2
7. It
is found that the hearing was opened on February 28, 1986, and that the
requirements of 1-21i(b), G.S., have been satisfied.
8. The
complainant alleged the public had been denied access to a meeting of the
respondent on February 10, 1986, because the meeting was held at a facility too
small to provide seating for those who wished to attend.
9. The
meeting was held at the Wallingford public library community room, a facility
which accommodates approximately 75 persons.
10. The
meeting was scheduled to provide information to the community concerning a
controversial trash-to-energy plant planned for the town.
11. The
proceedings of the meeting were broadcast on cable television and videotaped
for subsequent viewing at the town library.
12. Only
75 percent of the households in Wallingford have access to cable television.
13. Because
of the limited capacity of the library facility, many people were turned away,
although a few were able to view the proceedings from another room in the
library.
14. Sixty
people signed a petition, which accompanied the complaint, stating that they
were denied access to the meeting of the respondent on February 10, 1986.
15. An
alternative site for the meeting with capacity to accomodate several hundred
residents was available at Sheehan high school.
16. The
chairman of the respondent, David Gessert, was responsible for scheduling the
meeting at the library, a decision which he made on the basis of his concern
for public safety, because a similar meeting on January 16, 1986 had been
unruly.
17. The
chairman knew prior to the scheduled meeting that as many as several hundred
residents would come to the meeting.
Docket #FIC
86-40
page 3
18. The
respondent claimed that the meeting was properly limited because of the need to
protect public safety.
19. Provisions
relating to the conduct of meetings and to maintaining order are set forth at
1-21h, G.S., and these permit disruptive persons to be removed from a
meeting, while certain other provisions also set forth certain limits on what
an agency may do when a crowd is disruptive.
20. It
is found, therefore, that it is not permissible to limit public access to a
public meeting simply because an agency fears disorder.
21. It
is concluded that the restrictions on access which limited attendance at the
meeting of February, 10, 1986, violated the open meetings requirements of
1-21, G.S.
22. The
complainant requests that the Commission consider the imposition of a civil
penalty upon the respondent in accordance with the requirements of
1-21i(b), G.S.
23. It
is found that since the question presented here is one of first impression,
that it is not appropriate to consider the imposition of a civil penalty in
this case.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall post this decision in the office of the town clerk and at the
town library.
2. As
a good faith effort to provide informational outreach to the community in an
orderly environment, the February 10 meeting made creative and constructive use
of cable television's local access channel.
The possibilities of rebroadcast or even personal replay have great
informational value. But in its present
state of development such potential enhancement of the process cannot
substitute for the legal requirement of an open and accessible meeting.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of May 14, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission