FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Lourdes O'Neil Haynes and Voices,

 

                        Complainants,

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-180

 

Newtown Legislative Council,

 

                        Respondent                  January 10, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 3, 1989, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This case was consolidated with Docket #FIC 89-171 for hearing.

 

            At the Commission's October 25, 1989, meeting, the hearing officer withdrew his recommended order and further evidence on this matter was taken at a hearing on November 20, 1989.  At that time this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC 89-401 for hearing.

 

            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's jail sub-committee scheduled a meeting for 7:30 p.m. on May 31, 1989.

 

            3.  By letter dated June 6, 1989, and filed with the Commission on June 8, 1989, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging the business of that meeting actually was handled at a dinner meeting earlier that evening.

 

            4.  It is found that the agenda for the respondent's sub-committee's meeting was properly filed with and posted by the town clerk.

 

            5.  It is found that at 7:30 p.m. on May 31, 1989, many members of the respondent, some who were members of the subcommittee and others who were not, were present in the meeting room, along with members of the press.

 

            6.  It is found that the co-chairpersons were not present at 7:30 and that the sub-committee's meeting did not convene at that time.

 

            7.  It is found that shortly before the meeting scheduled for the respondent's full membership at 8:00 p.m., the co-chairpersons arrived, as did a town attorney and the first selectman. 

 

Docket #FIC 89-180                           Page Two

 

            8.  It is found that the co-chairpersons, the town attorney, the first selectman, and the second selectman had just had dinner together, at the first selectman's invitation, to receive an update on issues pertaining to the jail.

 

            9.  It is found that the jail is a topic over which the sub-committee and its co-chairpersons have advisory power.

 

            10.  It is found that the first selectman is an ex-officio member of the respondent but is not a member of the jail sub-committee.

 

            11.  It is found that the jail sub-committee co-chairpersons did not arrange the dinner nor did they determine its purpose or control the topics of conversation.

 

            12.  It is found that, although a topic over which the sub-committee had advisory power was discussed, no quorum of the jail sub-committee was present.

 

            13.  Thus it is concluded that the dinner did not constitute a meeting of the jail sub-committee within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            14.  It is found that a brief meeting of the sub-committee did take place belatedly, a few minutes before the 8:00 meeting of the respondent's full membership.  The meeting was difficult to hear because the full membership already was gathering and getting organized in the room.

 

            The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the entire record in the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

            2.  Although outside the scope of the complaint, the Commission notes that the practice of the jail sub-committee, and all the respondent's committees, of meeting in the same room at the same time before the respondent's regular meetings, may create serious problems for public access as members of the public are prevented from attending more than one committee meeting and audibility is likely to be low.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 10, 1990.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-180                           Page Three

 

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:

LOURDES O'NEIL HAYNES AND VOICES

Box 383

Southbury, CT 06488

 

NEWTOWN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

c/o David L. Grogins

158 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT

 

NEWTOWN BOARD OF SELECTMAN

c/o Stephen D. Wipperman, Esquire

19 Church Hill Road

Newtown, CT 06470

 

NEWTOWN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - JAIL SUBCOMMITTEE

c/o Elaine R. McClure

4 North Branch Road

RD #1

Newtown, CT 06470

 

            and

 

Joseph M. Mahoney

20 Diamond Drive

Newtown, CT 06470

 

RODERICK J. MACKENZIE, JR.

Edmond Town Hall

45 Main Street

Newtown, CT 06470

 

K. MICHAEL SNYDER

58 Osborne Hill Road

Sandy Hook, CT 06482

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission