FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final
Decision
Christopher D. Anderson,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 88-489
Town of Wethersfield,
Wethersfield Fire Department, and Wethersfield Fire Department Company No. 1,
Respondents September
27, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 27, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondents
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
town is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated December 19, 1988, and filed with the Commission on December 21, 1988,
the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging he was denied access to
the December 5, 1988, meeting of the respondent company no. 1.
3. The respondent
fire department and the respondent company no. 1 claim they are not public
agencies and not subject to the open meetings provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act.
4. As to whether
the respondent fire department and the respondent company no. 1 were created by
government, it is found that:
a. Before 1803, Wethersfield residents relied
on "chimney watchers" for fire protection.
b. The respondent company no. 1 was chartered
by the state on May 5, 1803, and comprised the respondent fire department in
its entirety for more than 100 years.
The whereabouts of the original charter is unknown.
c. In the 1920's Wethersfield's fire company
no. 2 originated and in 1957, company no. 3.
Docket #FIC 88-489 Page
Two
d. Each of these three fire companies has
always been staffed and managed by volunteers.
In each period of its history, the respondent fire department has
consisted primarily of the volunteer companies in existence at that time.
5. While the
Commission acknowledges the difficulty of providing evidence on the origins of
an organization that is 186 years old, it is concluded that the respondent fire
department and the respondent company no. 1 failed to prove that they were
privately created.
6. As to whether
the respondent fire department and the respondent company no. 1 are funded by
government, the following facts are found:
a. The respondent town provides the respondent
fire department with its three fire stations, including that which houses the
respondent company no. 1, rent free.
b. The respondent town also provides the
respondent fire department with the money for fire-fighting equipment and
clothing, which the department's administrative staff then allocates to the
volunteer companies, including the respondent company no. 1. When the town buys equipment directly, it
sends it to the department's administrators for allocation to the companies.
c. The fire houses and equipment remain the
property of the respondent town at all times and are purchased with money
generated by taxing town residents. The
volunteer companies, including the respondent company no. 1, do not purchase any of their own equipement.
d. The respondent company no. 1 annually
submits its budget to the respondent fire department's chief, who in turn
submits the budget for the entire department to the respondent town's manager.
e. The town manager and his staff authorize all
the respondent fire department's purchases and the town finance officer signs
all checks for these purchases.
f. The town fire marshall is a paid town
employee.
g. The town manager, who serves as the director
of safety for the department of safety's fire division, is a paid town
employee.
Docket #88-489 Page
Three
h. The respondent fire department's chief has a
town car available for his use at all times.
i. All other firefighters in the respondent
fire department and the respondent company no. 1 are volunteers not compensated
for their firefighting services.
j. In exchange for the volunteers maintaining
the fire station buildings, however, the respondent town does provide the
volunteer companies, including the respondent company no. 1, with some money
for social events.
7. It is
concluded, therefore, that both the respondent fire department and the
respondent company no. 1 are funded entirely by government.
8. As to whether
the respondent fire department and the respondent company no. 1 are regulated
by government, the following facts are found:
a. By town charter, the respondent town's
department of safety has a fire division that relies on the fire protection
services provided by the volunteer companies, including the respondent company
no. 1.
b. All officers and firefighters of the
respondent fire department and the respondent company no. 1 are members of the
fire division of the town's department of safety. It is their duty to know and follow the rules of the town's fire
division.
c. The respondent town's charter establishes
the office and duties of the respondent fire department's chief. It makes his duties subject to change by
town ordinance or by order of the director of safety, who is the town manager.
d. The respondent town's charter requires the
respondent fire department's chief to direct the volunteer companies, including
the respondent company no. 1, at fires.
e. The town charter also requires the
respondent fire department's chief to conduct training for the volunteer
firefighters, in cooperation with the volunteer companies' officers, including
those of the respondent company no. 1.
f. The respondent fire department's chief is
appointed by the respondent town's manager and must submit monthly reports to
the town manager.
Docket #FIC 88-489 Page
Four
g. The respondent fire department's assistant
chief and deputy chief are also appointed by the town manager.
h. Staff officers who assist the respondent
fire department's chief are also appointed by the town manager. The chief must
make requests to fill a staff vacancy or create a new position to the town
manager and must follow the respondent town's personnel rules when making
appointments or promotions.
i. The rules of the respondent town's
department of safety, fire division, detail the powers and duties of all the
respondent fire department's officers.
j. The respondent fire department's by-laws are
approved by the town manager. These
by-laws supercede any conflicting provisions in the respondent company no. 1's
bylaws.
k. The office of the respondent fire
department's chief is located in the respondent company no. 1's station house.
l. The records of policies and procedures of
the respondent fire department are maintained in the assistant chief's office,
located in company no. 2's station house.
m. The records of fires are maintained in the
fire marshall's office, located in the town hall.
n. One objective of the respondent company no.
1 is to operate in concert with other fire service organizations the respondent
town authorizes.
o. All applicants for membership in the
respondent company no. 1 must reside in the town of Wethersfield.
p.
Every resident applying to be a member of the respondent company no. 1 must
first obtain the approval of the respondent town's director of safety (town
manager) and the respondent fire department's chief.
q. The respondent company no. 1 informs the
respondent fire department's chief when an applicant has served the required
probationary term, and the chief then authorizes a change in that person's
status.
r. The respondent town's director of safety
(town manager) sets the maximum number of members allowed in the respondent
company no. 1. The company must seek
the
Docket #FIC 88-489 Page
Five
approval
of the respondent fire department's chief to increase its membership beyond
thirty people or to create additional officer positions.
s.
A volunteer firefighter wishing to
transfer into the respondent company no. 1 must complete a form provided by
either the respondent company no. 1 or the respondent fire department.
t. The respondent company no. 1 allows a
transfering firefighter with probationary status and proper licensing to drive
fire trucks if both the respondent company no. 1's captain and the respondent
fire department's engineer approves.
u. The respondent town requires each volunteer
company, including the respondent company no. 1, to hold at least one
administrative and training drill a month, and notify in writing the respondent
fire department's deputy chief of the attendance at each drill.
v. The operating rules of the respondent town's
department of safety, fire division, further detail the requirements for the
volunteers, including those of the respondent company no. 1, for training,
responding to alarms, fighting fires, attire, disciplinary actions, penalties,
etc.
w. The operating rules of the respondent town's
department of safety, fire division, also detail the powers and duties of the
volunteer companies' officers, including those of the respondent company no. 1.
9. Thus it is
concluded that the respondent company no. 1 is heavily regulated by the
respondent fire department, and that both are heavily regulated by the
respondent town. In addition, the work
of all three respondents is intertwined to a significant extent.
10. The
Commission takes administrative notice of §§7-301, 7-308, 7-313c, 7-314a and 7-314a(d),
G.S., which regulate further the relationship between municipalities and
volunteer fire companies.
11. It is
concluded that both the respondent fire department and the respondent company
no. 1 are heavily regulated by and intertwined with government.
12. It is found
that both the respondent fire department and the respondent company no. 1
perform firefighting and fire protection services.
Docket #FIC 88-489 Page
Six
13. It is
concluded, therefore, that both the respondent fire department and the
respondent company no. 1 perform a governmental function.
14. It is further
concluded that both the respondent fire department and the respondent company
no. 1 are public agencies for Freedom of Information Act purposes.
15. It is also
concluded, however, that the respondent company no. 1's purely social
activities are not governmental functions and under §1-18a(b), G.S., are not
subject to Freedom of Information Act requirements.
16. The
respondents claim that the respondent company no. 1's meeting was an
operational meeting and, under §7-314, G.S., not subject to the open meeting
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
17. It is found
that the following activities, other than purely social ones, regularly take
place at the respondent copmany no. 1's meetings:
a. The volunteer's captain informs them of new
policies and procedures formulated by the staff of the respondent fire
department.
b. The volunteer officers and firefighters
discuss firefighting techniques.
c. The volunteers vote on the probationary
status of members, a matter over which they do not have final decisional
authority.
d. The volunteers elect their officers and
swear them into office.
18. It is found
that the activities described in paragraphs 17a, b and c, above, are
operational within the meaning of §7-314, G.S.
19. It is
concluded, therefore, that the portion of the respondent company no. 1's
meeting at which those activities took place are not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act's open meeting requirements.
20. It is found
that the activity described in paragraph 17d, above, the election of the
officials who are responsible for running the company, is not operational
within the meaning of §7-314, G.S.
Docket #FIC 88-489 Page
Seven
21. It is
concluded, therefore, that the portion of the respondent company no. 1's
meeting at which the election of officers took place is subject to the Freedom
of Information Act's open meeting requirements.
22. It is further
found that the volunteer company no. 1 elects associate members to what is
essentially an honorary position for those who are no longer active
firefighters.
23. It is found
that the volunteer company allows associate members to attend social
gatherings, parades, and those meetings at which the company elects officers.
24. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent volunteer company no. 1 has waived
any claim to the confidentiality of its meetings at which officers are elected.
25. It is found that the complainant was denied access to
the respondent company no. 1's meeting of December 5, 1988.
26. It is found
that election of officers did take place at that meeting.
27. It is
concluded that the respondent company no. 1 violated §1-21(a), G.S., by denying
the complainant access to the December 5, 1988 meeting.
The following order by the Commission is recommended on
the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent
company no. 1 henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the open meeting
requirements of §1-21(a), G.S.
2. The Commission
reminds the respondents that Commission staff attorneys can provide answers to
telephoned questions and educational workshops on Freedom of Information Act
requirements free of charge.
Docket #FIC 88-489 Page
Eight
PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
CHRISTOPHER D. ANDERSON, 15
Lindbergh Drive, Wethersfield, CT 06109
TOWN OF WETHERSFIELD,
WETHERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT AND WETHERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT COMPANY NO. 1,
c/o Brian Thomas
Burns, Esquire, Sabatini and
Budney, One Market Square, Newington, CT 06111
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of September 27, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission