FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Mario A. Sarlo
et al.,
Complainants Docket #FIC 86-93
against
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.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission