FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Whit Betts,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 95-29
Joseph Wilson, Gerard Couture, Thomas Ragaini,
Arthur Ward, Richard Colbert and Bristol City Council,
Respondents November 8, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 12, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 filed with the Commission on February 8, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondents held a secret meeting on January 18, 1995, in violation of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act, and requested the imposition of civil penalties.
3. More specifically, the complainant alleges that the respondents met to discuss a proposed appointment to the Bristol Board of Finance which was the subject of an upcoming vote by the respondent council.
4. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant withdrew his request for civil penalties against the respondents.
5. It is found that on the evening of January 18, 1995, the above-named individual respondents, each of whom is a Democrat serving on the respondent council, met together with Democratic State Representative Kosta Diamantis and then Democratic Town Committee Chairman Christopher Ziogas in Mr. Ziogas's office.
#FIC 95-29 Page 2
6. It is found that the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, was not noticed as a meeting of the respondent council and no minutes thereof were filed.
7. Respondents Couture, Ragaini, Ward, Colbert and the council maintain that the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, was not a "meeting" under the FOI Act, since no matters over which the council has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power were discussed. In the alternative, such respondents claim that the January 18, 1995 gathering was a meeting of the town committee rather than a meeting of the respondent council and was not therefore subject to the open meeting requirements of the FOI Act.
8. Respondent Wilson maintains that the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, was a "caucus" of the Democrats serving on the respondent council and therefore did not constitute a "meeting" of the respondent council under the FOI Act.
9. 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 ... to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. "Meeting" shall not include: ... a caucus of members of a single political party notwithstanding that such members also constitute a quorum of a public agency; ... "Caucus" means a convening or assembly of the enrolled members of a single political party who are members of a public agency within the state or a political subdivision. (Emphasis added.)
10. It is found that the five council members present at the January 18, 1995 gathering described in paragraph 5, above, constitute a quorum of the six member council.
11. It is found that the January 18, 1995 gathering described in paragraph 5, above, was called together by the town committee chairman for the purposes of discussing possible candidates for the upcoming municipal election and to attempt to resolve interpersonal conflicts between certain council members.
12. It is found that in addition to the reasons for meeting described in paragraph 11, above, the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, also discussed: The history of politics in the City of Bristol, including past appointments; the everyday business of local government; and the advancement of certain council members' political agendas, which included a
#FIC 95-29 Page 3
Forestville boys' club project, a salt shed, getting a certain road paved and getting someone appointed to a board.
13. It is found that the Mayor of Bristol has the authority to nominate an appointment to a local board and that the respondent council has jurisdiction to vote upon such nomination.
14. It is found that on January 19, 1995, the Mayor of Bristol noticed a special meeting of the respondent council for January 20, 1995, and that the only item discussed and voted upon at such meeting was a highly controversial proposed appointment to the Board of Finance, which ultimately failed by virtue of a tie vote.
15. It is found, based upon the findings in paragraph 12 and 13, above, that the January 18, 1995 gathering described in paragraph 5, above, discussed at least one item over which the respondent council had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, and that the testimony elicited at the hearing on this matter to the contrary is improbable, at best.
16. It is further found that the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, did not constitute a "caucus" within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., due to the presence and participation of two non-council members.
17. It is therefore concluded that the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, constituted a "meeting" of the respondent council within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
18. It is concluded that by excluding the public from the January 18, 1995 meeting, failing to notice such meeting and failing to file minutes thereof, the respondents violated 1-21(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 95-29 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:
Whit Betts
1924 Perkins Street
Bristol, CT 06010
Bristol City Council
111 North Main Street
Bristol, CT 06010
Joseph Wilson, Gerard Couture, Thomas Ragaini, Arthur Ward and Richard Colbert
c/o Christopher Ziogas
P.O. Box 1399
Bristol, CT 06011-1399
Joseph Wilson
c/o Mark J. Ferraro, Esq.
Lewis, Lewis & Ferraro, LLC
28 North Main Street
West Hartford, CT 06107
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission