FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Wayne Mercier,

 

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-228

Personnel Board, City of Hartford;
and City of Hartford,

 

 

Respondents

October 13, 1999

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 9, 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(a), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

 

2.     It is found that the respondent board held a special meeting on April 22, 1999 (hereinafter “the meeting”) to discuss the extension of the eligible register (hereinafter “the register”) for the position of captain, which is a list of persons employed by the city in its fire department who are eligible to be promoted to fire captain. 

 

3.     It is found that the register was scheduled to expire on April 24, 1999, and that the complainant’s name was the only name remaining on the list.

 

4.     It is found that the respondents telephoned the complainant to inform him of the meeting and that the complainant attended and participated in the meeting.

 

5.     It is found that no vote was taken at the meeting and that, therefore, the register was not extended.

 

6.     It is found that at some point subsequent to the meeting, the complainant went to the city clerk’s office to inquire about the filing of the notice of the meeting and discovered that there was no time stamp on the notice to indicate that it had been filed twenty-four hours prior to the meeting. 

 

7.     By letters filed on May 14 and May 25, 1999, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to post notice of the meeting twenty-four hours prior to such meeting.

 

8.     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 be given not less that twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof . . . in the office of the clerk of subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state . . . Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the special meeting . . . The . . . clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office . . . .”

 

9.     It is found that the meeting was scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. but actually began at 8:34 a.m.

 

10. It is found that the respondent board was aware of the twenty-four hour notice requirement found in §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], and made a genuine effort to comply with that requirement in that the secretary of the respondent board arrived early at her office on the morning of April 21, 1999 to write the notice and that she thereafter delivered it to the city clerk’s office in order to meet the notice requirement.

 

11. It is found that on April 21, 1999, the secretary of the respondent board hand-delivered the notice of the special meeting to the city clerk sometime between 8:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m.

 

12. It is also found that there is no time stamp from the city clerk’s office on the notice indicating the time it was filed.

 

13. Consequently, the Commission cannot establish whether the respondents met the precise time requirements of §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.].  However, it is further found that any violation which may have occurred was one of a few minutes.

 

14. It is further found that the respondents used diligence in notifying the complainant of the meeting.

 

15. It is also found that the complaint in this matter alleged that the respondents failed to post the notice in a timely manner.

 

16. It is concluded, however, that the town clerk is responsible for posting notices of special meetings under the FOI Act.  See §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.].

 

17. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

 

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.

 

2.     The Commission cautions the respondents against filing notice of its special meetings within minutes of the twenty-four hour time requirement for such meetings. 

 

 

 

 

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:

 

 

Wayne Mercier

915 Town Colony Drive

Apt. # 15

Mailbox AG6

Middletown, CT  06457

 

Personnel Board, City of

Hartford; and City of Hartford

c/o Atty. Karen K. Buffkin

Office of Corporation Counsel

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1999-228/FD/mes/10141999