FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Maurice Rocheleau and Steve
Woodruff,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-178
Lisbon Board of Selectmen,
Respondent October
28, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on July 27, 1987, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared
and 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 June 24, 1987 the complainants
alleged that the respondent had held illegal emergency meetings. Attached to the complaint were an agenda and
minutes of an April 21, 1987 "emergency meeting," minutes of
"emergency meetings" held June 1, 1987 and June 19, 1987 and a notice
of cancellation, dated June 12, 1987, of a June 18, 1987 town meeting.
3. By
supplemental letter also filed with the Commission on June 24, 1987 the
complainants expanded their complaint to include an allegation that the
signature of the third selectman had been added to documents approximately 10
days after the documents' preparation.
However, such a matter is not within the jurisdiction of this Commission
and will not be considered in this report.
4. On July
21, 1987 the complainants filed a "Statement of Issues" which
included allegations related to, but not specifically encompassed by, the
complaints filed on June 24, 1987. This
report, however, is limited to those issues fairly raised in the complaint.
5. At
hearing, counsel for the respondent moved for a continuance based upon the
unavailability of the town attorney, which motion was denied.
Docket #FIC 87-178 Page
Two
6. Also at
hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint and to impose sanctions
against the complainants, which motions were denied.
7. It is
found that on April 21, 1987 the respondent placed on file with the town clerk
an agenda of an April 21, 1987 "emergency meeting," the purpose of
which was to "meet . . . with the Department of Housing regarding the
Senior Center."
8. The
minutes of such meeting were filed on May 5, 1987 and refer to it as a
"special meeting," containing no reference to any emergency. Such meeting was not, in fact, an emergency
meeting within the meaning of §1-21(a), G.S.
9. It is
found that the April 21, 1987 meeting between the respondent and the State of
Connecticut Department of Housing was a "meeting" within the meaning
of §1-18a(b), G.S. However, the meeting
was held and minutes were filed more than 30 days prior to the filing of the
complaint in this matter and was not an unnoticed or secret meeting within the
meaning of §1-21i(b), G.S.
10. It is
concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over allegations in the
complaint concerning the conduct of the April 21, 1987 meeting and the filing
of the minutes of such meeting.
11. On June 1,
1987 the respondent held an "emergency meeting," without public
notice, to make appointments and to set the annual town meeting date for
consideration of the budgets of the respondent and of the board of education. Minutes of such meeting were filed with the
town clerk on June 2, 1987.
12. At that
meeting the respondent made appointments to the school building committee and
to the recreation committee, and set a date of June 18, 1987 for the annual
town meeting.
13. The
respondent claims that appointing a member to the recreation committee
constituted an emergency based upon the urgings of the chairman of the
committee, who was anxious to hold a meeting but who feared the lack of a
quorum. The respondent also claims that
an appointment to the building committee constituted an emergency because the
building committee was scheduled to hold a meeting June 3, 1987 and it was
important that an appointment be made by then.
Docket #FIC 87-178 Page
Three
14. It is
found that no emergency existed concerning the appointments made on June 1,
1987. It is concluded that conducting
the June 1, 1987 meeting without public notice violated §1-21(a), G.S.
15. It is
found, however, that discussions concerning the date of the annual town meeting
constituted communication limited to notice of meetings of any public agency or
the agendas thereof within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S. and, as such, did not
constitute a meeting.
16. On or
about June 12, 1987 the respondent posted notice of the cancellation of the
annual town meeting scheduled for June 18, 1987.
17. On June
19, 1987 the respondent held an "emergency meeting" to reschedule the
annual town meeting, minutes of which were placed on file with the town clerk
on June 19, 1987.
18. It is
found that discussions concerning the cancellation and subsequent rescheduling
of the annual town meeting constituted communication limited to notice of
meetings of any public agency or the agendas thereof, within the meaning of
§1-18a(b), G.S. and, as such, did not constitute meetings for which notice was
required by §1-21(a), 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 henceforth shall refrain from conducting meetings without at least
24 hours notice except where there arises an emergency of sufficient magnitude
so as to make such notice not only inconvenient but impossible.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of October 28, 1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission