The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 10, 1998, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented 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(1), G.S.

        2. By letter of complaint dated October 1, 1997 and filed on October 2, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by taking up business at the respondent board’s September 3, 1997 regular meeting without first obtaining the required two-thirds vote to add such business to the agenda.

        3. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent board acknowledged that it had discussed an item not noticed on its September 3, 1997 regular meeting agenda ("agenda") without first taking an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members present and voting to add such item to the agenda.

        4. With respect to regular meetings § 1-21(a), G.S., 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."

        5. It is therefore concluded that the respondent board violated § 1-21(a), G.S., by discussing an item not noticed on its agenda without first taking an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members present and voting to add such item to the agenda.

        6. The complainant requested that the Commission order the respondents to attend an FOI Act workshop.

        7. It is found that based on the representation of the respondents’ counsel at the hearing that the respondents have been thoroughly apprised of their responsibilities with respect to § 1-21(a), G.S., the Commission in its discretion declines to order that the respondents attend an FOI Act workshop.

        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 § 1-21(a), G.S.

        Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 22, 1998.

_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:
Kathleen Krevetski, Treasurer, Town of Middlebury
c/o Atty. Francis J. Grady
Grady and Riley - Attorneys at Law
86 Buckingham Street
Waterbury, CT 06710

Chairman, Middlebury Board of Finance, Town of Middlebury and Middlebury Board of Finance, Town of Middlebury
c/o Atty. Dana A. D’Angelo
Smith and Smith
459 Middlebury Road
P.O. Box 1263
Middlebury, CT 06762

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-312/FD/tcg/04271998