FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

Keith M. Phaneuf & Journal Inquirer,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1995-417

 

Manchester General Manager and

Manchester Board of Directors,

 

                        Respondent(s)                                                  September 25, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 2, 1996, at which time the complainant(s) and respondent(s) 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2.         By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on December 29, 1995, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated §1-21, G.S., by holding two unnoticed meetings on November 30, 1995 and December 3, 1995, to discuss whether to enter into a public-private venture wherein a private company mined methane gas at the town landfill (“project”).

 

3.         The respondents concede that on November 30th and December 4th small groups of the respondent board—four members or less—met with the respondent general manager and his staff to discuss the project.

 

            4.         The respondents argue that the “sessions” were essentially administrative meetings called by the respondent manager to distribute informational materials about the project, and to make a presentation about methane gas recovery to less than a quorum of the respondent board members.  The respondents maintain that they would not have met if all of the respondent board members could only attend the same meeting.

 

            5.         It is found that the respondent board consists of nine members and that five members constitute a quorum.

 

            6.         Section 1-18a(b), G.S., defines a meeting as:

            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: an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member
            public agency.  (Emphasis added.)

            7.         Section 1-21(a), G.S., states in relevant part that the meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions … shall be open to the public.”

 

            8.         It is found that at the respondents’ November 21, 1995 regular meeting, the chairman of the respondent board asked that small group meetings of respondent board members be held with the respondent manager to review and discuss in greater detail, the materials relating to the project, before December 31, 1995.

 

            9.         It is found that December 31, 1995, was the date by which the town was to have signed a lease agreement for the project, but approval to go forward with the project and to enter into such an agreement first required a vote of approval by the respondent board on or about December 12, 1995.

 

            10.       It is found that at the respondents’ November 21st meeting, respondent board members made suggestions about the issues to be discussed at the small group meetings, including the sources of funding for the project, the extent of town liability, minimum insurance requirements, and the ability to adjust percentage and rate agreements contained in any contract.

 

            11.       It is found that on November 30th and December 4th the respondent manager and less than a quorum of the respondent board members met and discussed the project, and at the November 30th meeting the respondents also discussed the expansion of the town hall facilities.

 

            12.       It is found that the approval and funding of both the project and town hall’s expansion are each within the supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power of the respondent board.

 

            13.       It is found that at a meeting held on or about December 12, 1995, the respondent board voted to approve the project.

 

            14.       Based upon the findings set forth in paragraphs 8 through 13, above, it is found that despite the absence of a quorum, the board members who attended the November 30th and

December 4th meetings met under the express authority of the respondent board to discuss matters over which the respondent board had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power within the meaning of §1-18a(b).

 

            15.       It is also found that the meetings described in paragraphs 3 and 11 of the findings, above, constitute proceedings of the respondent board, and therefore meetings within the meaning of §§1-18a(b) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            16.       It is found further that the members of the respondent board have not cited any reason why the meetings of November 30th and December 4th could not have occurred in public session.

 

            17.       Consequently, it is concluded under the facts and circumstances of this case, that the respondent board violated the open meeting provision of §1-21(a), G.S., when its members met on November 30th and December 4th .

 

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

            1.         Henceforth the respondent board shall strictly comply with the open meeting requirements set forth in §1-21(a), G.S.

 

            2.         The complaint is hereby dismissed with respect to the respondent manager.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 1996.

 

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission


 

 

 

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:

 

Keith M. Phaneuf

Journal Inquirer

306 Progress Drive

P.O. Box 510

Manchester, CT 06045-0510

 

 

Manchester General Manager and Manchester Board of Directors

c/o Michael M. Darby, Esq.

Town Attorney

41 Center Street

P.O. Box 191

Manchester, CT 06045-0191

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission