FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Alan DiCara,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-244
Winchester Drinking Water Task Force,
Respondent May 24, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 16, 1995, 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 letter of complaint filed July 22, 1994, as amended by a letter filed July 29, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent had been meeting without notices or agendas.
3. It is found that the Winchester town manager, on his own initiative, created the respondent task force on April 28, 1994.
4. It is found that the need for the task force grew out of lack of clarity about how a certain project to build a water filtration plant was being administered by the staff of the town of Winchester.
5. It is found that the town manager's responsibilities concerning the filtration plant project included financing, status of grants, status of design, and timelines for grant applications.
6. It is found that the task force consists of four members: the town director of finance, the town purchasing agent, the town public works director, and the town manager.
7. It is found that the director of finance, the purchasing agent, and the public works director are staff of, and subordinate in the chain of command to, the town manager.
Docket #FIC 94-244 Page 2
8. It is found that the members of the task force were individually responsible for various aspects of the planning and construction of a water filtration plant, and that the status of that project had become unclear at the time the task force was created.
9. It is found that the task force initially met weekly, and later less frequently.
10. It is found that the purpose of the task force was to coordinate the members' efforts to ascertain the status of a proposed water filtration plant project, and correct problems in time to meet deadlines for applications for federal grants.
11. It is further found that the goal of the task force was to come to conclusions about the status of the water filtration plant project so that the town manager could bring that information to the board of selectman, in his capacity as town manager.
12. It is found that members of the Winchester board of selectmen, but never a quorum, have attended meetings of the task force.
13. It is found that the task force drew on the resources of other professionals, such as bond counsel.
14. It is found that the topics discussed at the task force meetings included whether the grant figure for the plant was guaranteed, design detail at the plant, and detailed issues concerning bond language.
15. It is also found that the task force had no powers beyond those of its individual staff members.
16. The complainant maintains that the meetings of the task force were meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b) and 1-21(a), G.S.
17. In particular, the complainant points to the fact that the members of the task force were multi-departmental, that the building of a water filtration plant was a very large project for the town, and that members of the the board of selectmen attended the meetings.
18. The respondent in turn maintains that the meetings of the task force were administrative or staff meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
Docket #FIC 94-244 Page 3
19. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., provides in relevant part:
"Meeting" means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. "Meeting" shall not include ... an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency ....
20. It is found that the members of the board of the selectmen who attended the task force meetings made comments about the matters under discussion, but did not guide the meeting or set the agenda for the meetings.
21. The respondent maintains that, notwithstanding the contributions by the members of the board of selectmen, no quorum of the board was present, and therefore no meeting of the board occurred.
22. Nonetheless, it is concluded that, whether or not the presence of the members of the board of selectmen constituted a meeting or proceeding of the board of selectmen (which is not at issue in this case), their contributions were not consistent with a purely administrative or staff meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
23. It is found that the town manager is a single-member public agency.
24. It is found that the department heads who are members of the task force are, pursuant to the Winchester town charter, staff of the town manager.
25. It is found that all of the topics and tasks addressed by the task force were administrative in nature.
26. It is concluded that the meetings of the task force are administrative or staff meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
27. The complainant further maintains that the respondent is subject to the meetings requirements contained in 1-21(a), G.S., because it is a "committee of, or created by," another public agency--that is, the town manager.
28. It is concluded, however, that the issue of whether the respondent is a committee, and therefore a public agency, within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S. (and therefore generally
Docket #FIC 94-244 Page 4
subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act), is separate from the issue of whether the meetings of the respondent are administrative or staff meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S. (and therefore not specifically subject to the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.).
29. The complainant further maintains that the task force took responsibility for finalizing the water filtration plant project, and therefore its actions should not be considered merely administrative or staff actions.
30. It is found, however, that the final authority for any decisions concerning the filtration plant rested with the board of selectmen or with a town referendum.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed with respect to the respondent.
2. The Commission takes this opportunity to advise the town manager, as the head of the respondent task force, and the members of the Winchester board of selectmen, who are not respondents in this case but who participated in the respondent's staff meetings, that the selectmen are clearly not staff of the town manager, and that their participation in such meetings could in itself constitute a meeting or other proceeding of the board of selectmen. In this regard, the town manager is referred to docket #FIC 93-313, Judy A. Benson and The Day v. New London Planning and Zoning Commission.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 24, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-244 Page 5
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:
ALAN DiCARA
263 South Road
Winsted, CT 06098
WINCHESTER DRINKING WATER TASK FORCE
c/o Kevin F. Nelligan, Esq.
Capecelatro & Nelligan
117 Main Street
P.O. Box 1045
Canaan, CT 06018
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission