FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Trenton E. Wright, Jr.,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 90-48
First Selectman, Town of Windham,
Respondent August 8, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 24, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated with Docket ##'s FIC 90-49, FIC 90-50 and FIC 90-58 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 complainant appealed to the Commission by letter filed February 7, 1990, alleging that the agenda for the Windham board of selectmen's January 24, 1990, special meeting was too vague to notify the public of the business to be transacted. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant requested that a civil penalty be imposed upon the respondent.
3. The respondent claims that, as the newly-elected first selectman, he was following the past practices of his office and now has taken steps to make sure the agenda are more specific.
4. It is found that the respondent is responsible for issuing the notices and agenda for the Windham board of selectmen's meetings.
5. It is found that the notice/agenda for the selectmen's January 24, 1990, special meeting stated the following business to be transacted:
" I. Call to order
II. Executive session - Personnel matters
III. Adjournment"
Docket #FIC 90-48 Page Two
6. It is found that the phrase "executive session - personnel matters" is too vague to communicate to the public what business would be transacted.
7. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to state in the notice of a special meeting the business to be transacted.
8. It is found that the respondent attended a workshop on Freedom of Information Act requirements lead by a Commission staff attorney on January 16, 1990.
9. It is also found, however, that since the complaint in this matter was filed, the respondent has taken steps to ensure that the notices and agenda for the selectmen's meetings state more specifically the business to be transacted.
The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the complete record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with 1-21(a), G.S., and state clearly in the notice of all special meetings of the Windham board of selectmen the business to be transacted.
2. The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty in this case.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 8, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-48 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:
TRENTON E. WRIGHT, JR.
232 Mansfield Avenue
Willimantic, CT 06226
FIRST SELECTMAN, TOWN OF WINDHAM
c/o Nicholas F. Kepple, Esq.
P.O. Box 1591
New London, CT 06320
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission