FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Susan G. Kniep,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88‑366
East Hartford Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition Subcommittee,
Respondent December
20, 1988
The above‑captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on October 24, 1988, at which time the
complainant 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 and conclusions of law are
reached.
1. The respondent is a
public agency within the meaning of §1‑18a(a), G.S.
2. The respondent held
a special meeting on August 24, 1988.
3. By letter of
complaint dated September 7, 1988 and received by the Commission on September
9, 1988, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging:
a. that the notice of the August 24, 1988
meeting did not specify discussion or action which occurred regarding
properties known as Linpro and Second North School; and
b. that the minutes of the August 24, 1988
meeting did not reflect discussion which occurred concerning Second North
School.
4. It is found that
the notice of the August 24, 1988 meeting lists among the agenda items
"Update on appraisals."
Docket #FIC 88‑366 Page 2
5.
It is found that the business transacted with respect to "Update on
appraisals" included the selection of an appraiser for the Linpro
property, and discussion of the reasons for a delay in the Second North School
property appraisal.
6.
It is also found that at the time of the August 24, 1988 meeting the respondent
had within its jurisdiction or control, in addition to the Linpro and Second
North School properties, numerous properties to which the agenda item
"Update on appraisals" could reasonably apply.
7.
It is concluded that the respondent violated §1‑21(a), G.S., by failing
to specify in its notice of the August 24, 1988 meeting the business to be
transacted at that meeting.
8.
It is found that the minutes of the August 24, 1988 meeting do not reflect any
discussion regarding the reasons for a delay in the Second North School
property appraisal.
9.
It is also found that the discussion at the August 24, 1988 meeting of the
reasons for the delay in the Second North School property appraisal was limited
to discussion of an illness in the appraiser's family.
10.
It is concluded that under the circumstances of this case the respondent did
not violate §1‑19(a), G.S., by failing to include the discussion
described in paragraph 9 above in the minutes of its August 24, 1988 meeting.
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 act in strict compliance with the notice
requirements of §1‑21(a), G.S.
Approved
by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of
December 20, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission