FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Robert Caffery,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 87-3
Portland
Volunteer Fire Department and Engine Company No. 1, Engine Company No. 2, and
Engine Company No. 3,
Respondents May 13, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on March 16, 1987, at which time the complainant and the
respondents appeared and presented testimony and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1.
By letter of complaint dated January 7, 1987, and filed with the
Commission on January 9, 1987, the complainant alleged the respondents failed
to file records of their meetings at the town clerk's office. The complainant also alleged that the
respondent engine company no. 1 had failed to comply with earlier Commission
orders in Docket #FIC 86-95 and #FIC 86-172.
2.
By letter dated February 4, 1987, and filed with the Commission on
February 6, 1987, the complainant asked for the imposition of a civil penalty.
3.
The respondents claim that 7-314, G.S., exempts them from the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
4.
It is found that the respondents are volunteer fire departments which
perform the governmental function of protecting property within the town of
Portland.
5.
It is found that the respondents are public agencies within the meaning
of 1-18a(a), G.S., when they are performing a governmental function and
that their meetings and records are subject to the Freedom of Information Act
to the same extent as the meetings and records of a municipal fire commission
or department are subject to the Act.
Docket #FIC 87-3 Page Two
6.
It is found, however, that the respondents are not public agencies
within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S., when they are performing purely
fraternal or social functions.
7.
It is further found that the respondents allow the public to attend
their meetings.
8.
It is found that on December 23, 1986, the complainant sought to inspect
the records of the respondents' meetings at the Portland town clerk's office.
9.
It is further found that the only record then on file in the Portland
town clerk's office was the minutes of the respondent engine company no. 1's
October 1986 meeting.
10.
It is found that all the respondents' meetings are meetings involving
active members of volunteer fire departments within the meaning of 7-314,
G.S.
11.
It is found that these meetings include, among others, the following
activities:
a. election of officers,
b. swearing in of new members and officers,
c. discussion and votes on whether to give
certain members probationary status and whether to terminate those already on
probationary status,
d. planning of fundraisers,
e. decisions on sending gifts to ill members,
f. airing of grievances about and suggestions
for company procedures,
g. announcements of company procedures and
changes in those procedures,
h. and discussions of firefighting techniques.
12.
It is found that the activities listed in paragraphs 11d and e above are
fraternal activities, not subject to the open meetings provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act.
13.
It is found that the activities listed in paragraphs 11a, b, c, f, g and
h, above, relate directly to the governmental function of protecting property
from fire.
Docket No. FIC 87-3 Page Three
14.
It is found that the activities listed in paragraphs 11f, g and h,
above, although they relate directly to a
governmental function, also relate to operational matters.
15.
It is further found that if these same activities were undertaken by a
municipal fire chief or subordinate officer, they would be excluded from the
Freedom of Information Act's definition of a "meeting" in
1-18a(b), G.S., as an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member
public agency.
16.
It is concluded that under 7-314, G.S., the operational activities
listed in paragraphs 11f, g and h, above, are not subject to the open meetings
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
17.
It is also concluded that the activities listed in paragraphs 11a, b and
c, above, do not constitute a portion of an operational meeting within the
meaning of 7-314(b), G.S., and are subject fully to the open meetings
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, including the provisions for
convening executive sessions in 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21(a), G.S.
18.
It is further concluded that the respondents violated 1-21(a),
G.S., by not filing notices, agenda or minutes for meetings in which those
activities listed in paragraphs 11a, b and c, above, took place.
19.
It is further found that the respondents failed to comply fully with the
Commission's orders in Docket #FIC 86-95 and #FIC 86-172 when they failed to
comply fully with the requirements of 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 respondents shall henceforth act in strict compliance with
1-21(a), G.S., and shall file notice, agenda and minutes for meetings in
which they undertake those activities listed in paragraphs 11a, 11b and 11c of
the findings, above.
2.
The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty.
3.
The Commission recognizes that the respondents will often have meetings
in which both operational and non-operational governmental matters are
undertaken. The Commission recommends
that, to the extent possible, the respondents separate
Docket No. FIC
87-3 Page Four
these activities
and take up all non-operational governmental matters during one segment of
their meetings and all operational matters during another. This approach would allow the respondents to
comply fully with the open meetings provisions of the Freedom of Information
Act, while reducing the potential for confusion or misunderstanding on the part
of the respondents' members and the public.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 13, 1987.
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission