FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Perry Dodson,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 89-123
Elections Review Committee,
Eighth Utilities District
Respondent
October
25, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on September 7, 1989, 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. By letter
dated March 29, 1989, the complainant requested copies of the minutes of all
the respondent's meetings, all methods of any of its surveys including polls,
all written correspondence from electors and all decisions regarding the Eighth
Utilities District electoral process.
2. By letter
dated April 17, 1989 the respondent's president informed the complainant that
no polls were taken, no written correspondence from electors was received, and
no formal minutes were taken of meetings involving the respondent. The respondent then provided the complainant
with transcribed notes of those meetings.
3. By letter of
complaint dated and filed with the Commission on April 12, 1989, the
complainant alleged that he was denied access to the requested records.
4. At the hearing
the complainant alleged that the respondents failed to provide him with proper
minutes of all its meetings.
5. The respondent
contends that the Elections Review Committee is not a public agency pursuant to
§1-18a(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-123 Page
2
6. It is found
that the respondent is a committee of the Eighth Utilities District, which is a
public agency within the meaning of §1-18(a), G.S.
7. It is
concluded that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of
§1-18a(a).
8. The respondent
also claims that the complainant did not fairly raise the committee's failure
to take proper minutes of their meetings in his letter of complaint.
9. It is found
that the transcribed notes delivered to the complainant were not proper minutes
within the meaning of §§1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., because the notes failed to
reflect the time and place of the meeting, when each agency member arrived at
the meeting, how long he remained, the business transacted, and how each member
of the respondent voted on each issue.
10. It is also
found that the respondent's decisions concerning the electoral process made in
its meetings between September 7, 1988 to November 14, 1989 inclusive were
indicated in the meeting notes, by terms such as "consensus",
"vetoed", "strong preference", and "endorsed."
11. It is further
found that when the use of such terms has the effect of rendering a decision
for the committee, it constitutes a vote of a public agency within the meaning
of §1-21(a), G.S.
12. It is further
found that when the use of such terms precludes further consideration on an
issue, it constitutes a vote of a public agency within the meaning of §1-21(a),
G.S.
13. It is also
found that pursuant to §§1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., the votes of each agency member upon any issue
before the agency shall be reduced to writing and shall be made available for
public inspection within 48 hours of the meetings at which the votes were
taken.
14. It is further
found that the respondent's failure to provide the complainant with proper
minutes of its meetings is within the scope of the complaint.
15. It is
concluded that the respondent violated §§1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., by failing
to complete minutes for each of its meetings between September 7, 1988 to
November 14, 1988 inclusive.
Docket #FIC 89-123 Page
3
16. It is further
concluded that the complainant did not receive the minutes requested in his
complaint in violation of §1-15, G.S.
17. The
Commission also notes that the respondent violated §1-21(a), G.S., by failing
to file the minutes of its meetings with the district clerk within seven
business days.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. To the extent
possible, the respondent forthwith shall reconstruct minutes of its meetings
between September 7, 1988 to November 14, 1988 inclusive, which shall reflect
the time, date, and place of each meeting, the identities of the respondent's
members present at the meeeting, the time when each member arrived at and
departed from the meeting, the business transacted and how each member voted on
each decision and recommendation.
2. The respondent
forthwith shall both provide the complainant with these minutes and file them
with the district clerk.
3. Henceforth,
the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of §§1-19(a)
and 1-21(a), G.S., regarding the recording of votes of agency members, the
recording of proper minutes and the filing of these minutes within the
appropiate time period.
Approved by order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-123 Page
4
PURSUANT TO SECTION
4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT
MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE
PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
PERRY DODSON
c/o Kevin M. O'Brien,
Esquire
O'Brien and Higgins
267 Main Street
Manchester, CT 06040
ELECTIONS REVIEW COMMITTEE,
EIGHTH UTILITIES DISTRICT
c/o John D. LaBelle, Jr.,
Esquire
LaBelle & LaBelle, P.C.
295 East Center Street
P.O. Box 511
Manchester, CT 06040
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission