FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Lawrence G. Stankus,

 

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1998-336

Superintendent of Schools, Regional

School District #17; Finance Director,

Regional School District #17; Chairwoman,

Board of Education, Regional School

District #17; Treasurer, Regional

School District #17; Chairman, Budget

Committee, Board of Education,

Regional School District #17; and Board

of Education, Regional School District #17,

 

 

 

Respondents

October 13, 1999

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 8, 1999, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

 

2.     It is found that the budget committee of the respondent board (hereinafter “budget committee”) held a meeting on September 29, 1998, at which the respondent board’s attorney (hereinafter “attorney”) gave a presentation.

 

3.     By letter dated and filed on October 23, 1998, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter “FOI” Act) by failing to post a complete and self-explanatory agenda of the budget committee’s September 29, 1998, meeting.

 

4.     Section 1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[n]otice of each special meeting of every public agency . . . shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency.”

 

5.     It is found that the budget committee meeting was noticed as a special meeting and that the notice listed the business to be transacted as: review of transfer; discussion of supplemental audit; discussion of budget monitoring process; and other budget concerns.

 

6.     It is found that the attorney’s presentation addressed capital operating expenses and rules pertaining to line item transfers.

 

7.     At the hearing in this matter, the complainant argued that the failure of the budget committee to list the attorney’s name and the subject of his presentation on the meeting agenda violated the FOI Act and denied him his right to attend the September 29, 1998, meeting.  The complainant claimed that the attorney’s presentation was prompted by another presentation that the complainant had made at a select review committee meeting and that had he known the attorney would make a presentation at the budget committee’s September 29, 1998 meeting, he would have attended the budget committee meeting.

 

8.     Although the phrase “budget concerns” is not the epitome of legal clarity, it is found that in the circumstances presented, the notice of the special meeting in question fairly apprised the public of the business to be transacted at that meeting.

 

9.     It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], by not listing the attorney’s name and the subject of his presentation as a separate item of business in the budget committee’s notice of the September 29, 1998 meeting. 

 

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

 

            1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

October 13, 1999.

 

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

 

Lawrence G. Stankus

157 Route 81

Killingworth, CT  06419

 

 

Superintendent of Schools, Regional
School District #17; Finance Director,
Regional School District #17; Chairwoman,
Board of Education, Regional School
District #17; Treasurer, Regional
School District #17; Chairman, Budget
Committee, Board of Education,
Regional School District #17; and Board
of Education, Regional School District #17
c/o Atty. Thomas B. Mooney
Shipman & Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT  06103

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1998-336/FD/mes/10141999