FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
John C. Murray,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-92
Orange Board of Education,
Respondent December 22, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 19, 1993, at which time the complainant and counsel for the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented exhibits and argument on the complaint. In addition, the complainant presented testimony, however, counsel for the respondent did not, and instead presented a summary of the respondent's position.
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 letter dated April 6, 1993, and filed with the Commission on April 7, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by convening a secret meeting on March 30, 1993.
3. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent stated the following:
a. on March 30, 1993 four of the respondent's members gathered at the home of one of its members;
b. the respondent's chairperson, vice-chairperson and two other of the respondent's members, who had been appointed by the chairperson to act as a special sub-committee for the purpose of evaluating the superintendent of schools, were present at the March 30, 1993 gathering; and
c. the purpose of the gathering was to receive a report on the progress being made by the special sub-committee.
Docket #FIC 93-92 Page 2
4. The respondent contends that first, there was no quorum of its members present on March 30, 1993 and second, that those of its members who were present did not comprise a permanent sub-committee of the respondent. Consequently, the respondent contends, no meeting occurred.
5. In pertinent part, 1-18a(b), G.S., defines a meeting as any hearing or other proceeeding of a public agency to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
6. It is found that the March 30, 1993 gathering was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., because it was a proceeding to discuss or act upon a matter over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
7. It is also found that the respondent offered no evidence to establish that the March 30, 1993 meeting was something other than a meeting, or that it was privileged to convene in secret.
8. It is concluded that in the absence of evidence that the March 30, 1993 meeting was something other than a meeting, the respondent has failed to prove that it did not violate the complainant's rights under the Freedom of Information Act.
9. Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that the meetings of all public agencies shall be open to the public.
10. Section 1-21(a), G.S., further provides for the filing of an agenda for a regular meeting or the filing of a notice for a special meeting.
11. Section 1-19(a), G.S., requires that each agency make, keep and maintain a record of its proceedings.
12. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-18a(b), 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., by improperly convening a meeting on March 30, 1993, without filing the requisite notice or agenda, thereby depriving members of the public of their right to attend such meeting, and by failing to maintain minutes for such meeting.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith prepare and approve minutes for its March 30, 1993 meeting.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the notice requirements for meetings set forth in 1-21(a), G.S.
Docket # FIC 93-92 Page 3
3. The Commission wishes to remind the respondent of its authority to issue civil penalties for the denial of Freedom of Information rights without reasonable grounds.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 22, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket # FIC 93-92 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:
Mr. John C. Murray
394 Haystack Hill Road
Orange, CT 06477
Orange Board of Education
c/o Michael J. Dorney, Esq.
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
P.O. Box 1936
New Haven, CT 06509-1910
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission