FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Shirley Vigneri,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-77

 

Windham Board of Selectmen,

 

                                Respondent                          December 13, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 5, 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 dated March 22, 1995 and filed with the Commission on March 23, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated:

 

                                a.  1-21, G.S., by holding a secret meeting on March 20, 1995; and

 

                                b.  7-3, G.S., by failing to warn the March 20, 1995 meeting.

 

                3.  With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that First Selectman Walter Pawelkiewicz, Selectman Sam Shifrin, Selectman Tom White, Selectman Charlotte Patros, Controller Kathy Maxwell, and Chairman Windham Board of Finance John French met on March 20, 1995 for approximately one half hour; that they discussed whether or not they would support the First Selectman's proposal that the respondent go into executive session to discuss the Nasen land fill contract matter (hereinafter "contract issue") at the next night's March 21, 1995 regular meeting of the respondent; that they arrived at a consensus that they would support going into executive session at the March 21, 1995 meeting to discuss the contract issue.

 

Docket #FIC 95-77                                                   Page 2

 

                4.  The respondent's sole defense is that the March 20, 1995 meeting constitues a communication limited to notice or the agenda of meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

                5.  It is found however, that the respondent's March 21, 1995 filed meeting agenda indicates no discussion in executive session of the contract issue; that the March 20, 1995 discussion went beyond the March 21, 1995 meeting agenda; that the March 20, 1995 discussion included the arrival at a consensus to add a new item to the March 21, 1995 meeting agenda; that the item agreed to be added was an executive session for the purpose of discussing the contract issue; that the consensus reached to add such item to the March 21, 1995 meeting agenda on March 20, 1995 constituted a vote within the meaning of 1-21, G.S.

 

                6.  It is therefore concluded that the unnoticed meeting discussion was not a communication limited to notice or the agenda of meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., but was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

                7.  With respect to regular meetings, 1-21(a), G.S., in relevant part provides:

 

                                [U]pon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of a public agency present and voting, any subsequent business not included in such filed agendas may be considered and acted upon at such meetings.

 

                8.  It is found that the respondent could have and should have had the March 20, 1995 discussion at the March 21, 1995 meeting.

 

                9.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21, G.S., by holding an unnoticed meeting on March 20, 1995, and by voting to add an executive session item to the March 21, 1995 meeting agenda.

 

                10.  With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b., above, it is found that the Commission has no jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of 7-3, G.S.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record in the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.  The respondent shall within one week of the receipt of the notice of the final decision in this matter construct minutes to reflect the nature of the entire proceedings on March 20, 1995, at which First Selectman Pawelkiewicz, Selectmen Shifrin, White and Patros and Controller Maxwell, and Chairman Board of Finance French were present.

 

Docket #FIC 95 77                                                     Page 3

 

                2.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the meeting provisions of 1-21, G.S.

 

                3.  The Commission takes this opportunity to inform the respondent that future violations of the provisions of the FOI Act may lead to the imposition of civil penalties of up to $1000 against the official directly responsible for such violations.

 

                4.  The allegation as described in paragraph 2b. of the findings above, is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-77                                               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:

Shirley Vigneri

P.O. Box 93

South Windham, CT 06266

 

Windham Board of Selectmen

c/o Richard Cody, Esq.

21 East Main Street

Mystic, CT 06355

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission