FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Paul T. Nonnenmacher, Jr. and The Bridgeport Post,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-318
Stratford Ordinance Committee and Stratford Town Attorney,
Respondents March 27, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 10, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated August 20, 1990 and filed with the Commission on August 23, 1990, the complainants alleged that during the recess of the respondent committee's July 30, 1990 special meeting (hereinafter "special meeting"), a quorum of members of the respondent committee and the respondent attorney held an illegal meeting which the respondent attorney characterized as a caucus.
3. It is found that the respondent committee held a special meeting at which an ordinance dealing with blighted properties was discussed, and during the course of the meeting a recess was called.
4. It is found that during the recess approximately seven members of the respondent committee, the respondent attorney and two other members of his staff adjourned to the council clerk's office (hereinafter "office").
Docket #FIC 90-318 Page 2
5. It is found that the office is a lounge area for committee and non-committee members where refreshments are available and smoking is permitted.
6. It is found that during the recess of the special meeting two of the seven Republican members of the respondent committee who were in the office argued about the propriety of a committee member's conduct during the public portion of the meeting.
7. It is found that a third committee member and the respondent town attorney briefly participated in the discussion.
8. It is found that when the complainant Nonnenmacher attempted to enter the office he was told by the respondent town attorney that a "caucus" was being held, and the complainant was asked to leave the office which he did upon request.
9. It is found that a quorum of the respondent committee neither met to discuss agency business nor held a caucus at any time during the course of the recess.
10. It is therefore concluded that the complainants were not denied their right to attend a public meeting as provided by 1-21, G.S.
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.
2. The Commission notes that the respondent attorney acted improperly and not in the spirit of Connecticut's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") by characterizing a raucous private discussion between public officials as a caucus.
3. The Commission also notes that the respondent attorney's action to exclude the public from being within earshot of the argument between the respondent committee members helped to create the perception of a violation of the FOIA.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-318 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:
PAUL T. NONNENMACHER, JR. AND THE BRIDGEPORT POST
410 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
STRATFORD ORDINANCE COMMITTEE AND STRATFORD TOWN ATTORNEY
c/o Benjamin S. Proto, Jr., Esq.
Town Hall
2725 Main Street
Stratford, CT 06497
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission