FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John D. Candelmo,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-1
Oxford Board of Finance,
Respondent June 27, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 26, 1990, 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. By letter of complaint dated December 28, 1989, postmarked December 28 or 29, 1989, and filed with the Commission on January 2, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that:
a. the two minority party members of the respondent did not receive notice of the respondent's November 29, 1989 meeting until after that meeting; and
b. the respondent's November 29, 1989 meeting was an improper emergency meeting.
3. At the hearing, the complainant amplified his complaint to allege that the respondent took action at its November 29, 1989 meeting that was not on the agenda of that meeting.
4. With respect to that portion of the complaint described in paragraph 2.a, above, it is concluded that the complainant lacks standing to complain that agency members, who have not themselves appealed to the Commission, did not receive timely written notice at their abode of the respondent's November 29, 1989 meeting pursuant to 1-21(a), G.S.
5. With respect to that portion of the complaint described in paragraph 2.b, above, it is found that the respondent filed a notice of its November 29, 1989 meeting with the Oxford Town Clerk on November 27, 1989.
Docket #FIC 90-1 Page 2
6. It is concluded that the respondent's November 29, 1989 meeting was a special meeting within the meaning of 1-21(a), G.S.
7. It is further concluded that the respondent violated no provision of the Freedom of Information Act by referring to its November 29, 1989 meeting as an emergency meeting.
8. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 3, above, it is found that the respondent voted at its November 29, 1989 meeting to grant the auditor additional time to complete his audit.
9. It is found that action described in paragraph 8, above, was not described in the notice of the November 29, 1989 meeting.
10. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by taking up business not described in the notice of its November 29, 1989 meeting.
11. At the hearing, the respondent indicated its willingness to attend an educational workshop conducted by the staff of the Commission.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed with respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2 of the findings above.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., regarding the business that may be permissibly transacted at a special meeting.
3. The Commission commends the respondent for its expressed willingness to attend an educational workshop on Freedom of Information Act requirements, and encourages both the respondent and the complainant to attend the next educational workshop conducted by the Commission staff at a location convenient to the parties.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 27, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-1 Page 3
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:
JOHN D. CANDELMO
60 Oakwood Drive
Oxford, CT 06483
OXFORD BOARD OF FINANCE
c/o Gerald M. Gallant, Esquire
144 Oxford Road
Oxford Plaza
Oxford, CT 06483
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission