FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
James W. Ciaglo,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-450
Superintendent, Colchester Public Schools and Colchester Board of Education,
Respondents May 8, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 5, 1991, at which time the complainant 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 filed with this Commission on November 20, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the FOI Act by conducting a telephone poll after the issuance of an October 22, 1990 memorandum from the superintendent to the board of education.
3. At the hearing, the respondents conceded that telephone polling had occurred between the superintendent and the board between the dates of October 22, 1990 and October 26, 1990 regarding the superintendent's October 22 written memorandum to the board.
4. It is concluded that the respondents' telephone communications identified in paragraph 3, above, constitute a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
5. The respondents also conceded that no warning of the communications identified in paragraph 3, above, occurred and that no minutes or record of such communications were kept.
6. At the hearing, the respondents claimed that their failure to comply fully with the FOI Act was inadvertent and was not an attempt to shield their activities from the public; accordingly, they attached copies of their memorandum as well as a letter
Docket #FIC 90-450 Page 2
from their attorney pointing out the respondents' deviations from the provisions of the FOI Act to the agenda of the board's November 13, 1990 meeting.
7. It is concluded that with respect to their meeting identified in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, the respondents violated the provisions of 1-21, G.S. by failing to post notice, by failing to grant public access, and by failing to keep minutes or a written record of any votes taken or consensus reached.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondents shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 8, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-450 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:
JAMES W. CIAGLO
565 Old Hartford Road
Colchester, CT 06415
SUPERINTENDENT, COLCHESTER PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COLCHESTER BOARD OF EDUCATION
c/o Martha M. Watts, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission