FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Richard A. Miron,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-115

 

Stratford Town Council,

 

                        Respondent                  February 13, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 24, 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 complaint filed March 21, 1990, the complainant alleged:

 

            (a)        the respondent failed to timely post notice of a  meeting adjourned to February 22, 1990, because notice was posted three days after the time of adjournment;

 

            (b)        the respondent failed to include an agenda with its notice for the February 22, 1990 meeting;

 

            (c)        the respondent conducted its February 22, 1990, meeting without an agenda; and

 

            (d)        the respondent considered business not on any agenda at its February 22, 1990, meeting.

 

            3.         The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because the allegations concerning the notice of the adjourned meeting were not timely filed.  The respondent also claimed that the complainant's additional charges were without merit.

 

            4.         It is found that 1-21d, G.S. requires that a notice of adjournment be posted within 24 hours of the time of adjournment of the meeting.

 

Docket #FIC 90-115                                   Page Two

 

            5.         It is found that the respondent adjourned a regular meeting, which was held on February 13, 1990 and  which ran past midnight until 12:44 a.m. on February 14, 1990, to February 22, 1990 at 7.30 p.m.

 

            6.         It is found that the respondent posted a notice without an agenda for the adjourned meeting on February 16, 1990.

 

            7.         It is concluded that the motion to dismiss is denied because the adjourned meeting for which notice is alleged to be deficient was held on February 22, 1990, within thirty days of the date the complaint was filed.

 

            8.         It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21d, G.S., when it failed to post the notice of adjournment on or near the door of the place where its February 13, 1990 meeting was held within twenty-four hours after the time of adjournment.

 

            9.         It is found that because the notice of adjournment failed to satisfy the time requirements of 1-21d, G.S., the February 22, 1990 meeting became a special meeting subject to the notice requirements of 1-21, G.S.

 

            10.       It is found that the respondent left the agenda for the February 13, 1990 meeting on the same board as it posted its notice of adjournment.

 

            11.       It is found that the respondent considered new business not included on the agenda for the February 13, 1990 meeting at its February 22, 1990 meeting.

 

            12.       It is concluded that the notice requirements of 1-21, G.S., for special meetings were satisfied because the agenda for the February 13, 1990 meeting, which was adjourned to February 22, 1990, remained posted.

 

            13.       It is concluded, however, that the respondent violated 1-21, G.S., by failing to properly limit the business which it conducted at its February 22, 1990 special meeting by considering business which was not on the agenda for the February 13, 1990 meeting.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

Docket #FIC 90-115                                   Page Three

 

            1.         The respondent shall henceforth comply with the requirements of 1-21 and 1-21d, G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 13, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-115                                   Page Four

 

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:

RICHARD A. MIRON

c/o Frank P. Blando, Esq.

2 Research Drive

Suite 212

Stratford, CT 06497

 

STRATFORD TOWN COUNCIL

c/o Benjamin S. Proto, Jr., Esq.

Town Attorney's Office

2725 Main Street

Stratford, CT 06497

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission