FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
David McKay
Wilson and The New Haven Advocate,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-83
Board of Tax
Review of New Haven,
Respondent May 14, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on April 15, 1986, at which time the complainants 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 March 27, 1986 the
complainant Wilson alleged that the respondent held unnoticed meetings on March
19, 1986, March 21, 1986 and March 24, 1986.
The complainant further alleged that he made a request of the secretary
for the respondent board for minutes of its meetings for the past seven years
and was informed that no minutes of the respondent board exist.
3.
The respondent admits holding meetings on the dates in question,
concerning tax assessments with respect to which neither notices nor minutes
had been filed.
4.
The respondent claims, however, that the meetings were
"deliberative sessions" at which evidence is reviewed by the
respondent to determine whether a taxpayer's property has been accurately
assessed.
Docket #FIC
86-83
Page 2
5.
The respondent further claims that the evidence reviewed usually
contains personal information about the taxpayer, such as income statements,
rental statements and appraisals and that this information is not discloseable
to the public.
6.
It is found that the deliberative sessions in question were meetings
within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
7.
It is found that the respondent has no prior knowledge of the evidence
that will be introduced or the subject matter of the appeal until the actual
day of the hearing.
8.
It is further found that one of the reasons for the respondent's closed
meeting policy is the "fair" number of its appeals that go to court.
9.
It is found that although the respondent may be permitted to conduct
some of its deliberations in executive session, such a fact does not sanction a
closed meeting policy or excuse the respondent from complying with the open
meetings requirements of 1-21(a),G.S.
10.
It is concluded that the respondent's failure to file notice of the
meetings in question is a violation of 1-21, G.S.
11.
It is found that the only record of its meetings kept by the respondent
is a compilation sheet of the reductions granted.
14.
It is concluded that the failure of the respondent to keep minutes of
any of its meetings constitutes a continuing violation of 1-19(a) and
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 respondent shall henceforth keep minutes and file notices of all of
its meetings in accordance with 1-19(a) and 1-21, G.S.
Docket #FIC
86-83
Page 3
2.
The respondent is ordered to appear at a supplemental hearing on May 22,
1986, in order to show cause why a civil penalty should not be imposed pursuant
to 1-21i(b), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 14, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission