FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by Revised
Final Decision
Michael
Selvaggi,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-348
Milford Board of
Education Finance Committee and Milford Board of Education,
Respondents July 28, 1993
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on April 23, 1993, at which time the complainant and
the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After the hearing, the Commission determined that it had inadvertently
omitted to name the Milford Board of Education as a respondent in this matter,
which omission has been corrected in the caption herein.
A notice of final decision in
this matter was mailed on June 25, 1993.
By letter dated July 15, 1993, the respondent brought to the
Commission's attention a discrepancy between the findings made in this matter
and the order made by the Commission.
The Commission thereafter, upon the recommendation of the Hearing
Officer, voted to reconsider its decision.
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 filed November 11, 1992, the
complainant appealed to the commission, alleging that:
a. the minutes of the respondent
finance committee's September 29, 1992 meeting were not available until October
13, 1992; and
b. the agenda for the respondent board
of education's October 13, 1992 meeting was "vague if not
misleading."
3. It is found that the respondent finance committee met on
September 29, 1992 to discuss, among other things, extending the respondent
board's bus contract with the current service vendor, Winkle Bus Co., and not
putting the matter out to bid.
Docket #FIC
92-348 Page
2
4. It is found that the finance committee reached a
consensus to recommend a new contract with Winkle Bus Co. to the full board of
education.
5. At the hearing, the respondent finance committee
conceded that the minutes of its September 29, 1992 meeting were not available
within seven days of the meeting.
6. It is concluded that the respondent finance committee
violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to make available for public inspection
the minutes of its September 29, 1992 meeting within seven days of that
meeting.
7. It is found that the agenda of the respondent board of
education's October 13, 1992 meeting listed, under the category "committee
reports," a finance committee recommendation regarding the Winkle Bus Co.
contract.
8. The complainant maintains that this agenda item fails to
specify what action was contemplated with regard to the contract. Specifically, the complainant argues that
the respondent should have identified that action, and not merely discussion,
was contemplated, and what that action was to be.
9. It is found that the agenda item reasonably apprises the
public that the finance committee was to make a recommendation to the full
board regarding the Winkle Bus Co. contract.
10. It is also found that the action of the finance committee
at its September 29, 1992 to approve a four-year contract with Winkle Bus Co.
had been published in the local newspaper, and the complainant himself had
actual knowledge of that action.
11. It is found that the complainant addressed the board of
education at its October 13, 1992 meeting before it took up the finance
committee's recomendation.
12. It is also found that the complainant in his remarks
stated that he expected that the board might agree to apparently completed
negotiations on the contract, and would in all likelihood accept the
recommendation of its finance committee and vote to waive bidding on the
contract.
13. It is found that the agenda item was sufficiently specific
to put an interested member of the community on notice that the respondent
board of education would receive a committee recommendation regarding the bus
contract.
14. It is concluded under the facts of this case that an
interested member of the community would understand that the board of education
might act on that recommendation, whether or
Docket #FIC
92-348 Page
3
not the words
"action" or "contract approval" were contained in the agenda.
15. It is therefore concluded that under the circumstances of
this case the disputed agenda item sufficiently described the business to be
transacted at the meeting.
16. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not
violate 1-21(a), G.S., by using the language contained in its agenda item.
17. The Commission notes that while it finds that the agenda
item was technically adequate, the board, as a matter of good public policy,
should consider using language in its agenda that specifically communicates
whether action will be taken or considered on a particular recommendation,
particularly in areas that excite substantial public interest, like the
controversy in this case.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent finance committee shall
strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S., concerning the
availability of the minutes of a meeting within seven days of a meeting.
2. The complaint is dismissed as to the respondent board of
education.
Approved by
Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July
28, 1993.
Debra
L. Rembowski
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC
92-348 Page
4
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:
Michael Selvaggi
574 Milford
Point Road
Milford, CT
06460
Milford Board of
Education Finance Committee and Milford Board of Education
c/o Atty. Ruth
Brufsky
Berchem, Moses
& Devlin, P. C.
75 Broad Street
Milford, CY
06460
Debra
L. Rembowski
Acting
Clerk of the Commission