FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

George L. Bozzi, Jr.,

 

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-284

Chairperson, Board of Education, Wallingford

Public Schools; and Board of Education,

Wallingford Public Schools,

 

 

Respondents

November 10, 1999

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 25, 1999, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  “Board of Education, Town of Wallingford” in the case caption was modified to “Board of Education, Wallingford Public Schools”.

           

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.  By letter dated and filed on June 16, 1999, the complainant, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act, specifically, the open meeting proceedings of §1-225(a), G.S., (formerly §1-21(a), G.S.), at the respondent board’s regular meeting of May 17, 1999 when:

 

they limited public access to the meeting by proceeding with the meeting in a room which lacked sufficient capacity to accommodate those who appeared at the room’s entrances hoping to attend the meeting.

 

3.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in contested case docket #FIC 86-40, Edward R. Bradley v. Wallingford Town Council of the Town of Wallingford (“FIC 86-40”).

 

4.  It is found that on May 17, 1999 the respondent board held a regular meeting in the Drama/Lecture room at the Mark T. Sheehan High School (hereinafter “meeting room”).

 

5.  It is found that during the first portion of the meeting, the board presented awards to outstanding middle and high school students.

 

6.  It is found that prior to the start of the awards ceremony, the respondent chairman observed that the meeting room was filled to capacity and that there were more people in the meeting room and outside the corridor of the meeting room than could comfortably be accommodated.  After consulting with the Superintendent of Schools (“superintendent”) about possibly changing the location of the meeting, the respondent chairman and the superintendent decided to split up the awards ceremony, handing out awards first to the middle school students and then to the high school students.

 

7.  It is found that the respondent chairman asked the middle school parents and students to remain in the meeting room, and others to exit the room briefly while the middle school presentations were made.  Then middle school parents and students were asked to exit while the high school students were presented with awards.

 

8.  It is found that the awards ceremony lasted about ten minutes, after which most parents and students left the meeting room, and the remaining business on the meeting agenda was conducted by the respondents before an audience of about five or six persons.

 

9.  It is found that the decision of the respondent chairman and the superintendent to not change the location of the meeting was predicated on the assumption that most parents and students would leave the meeting room following presentation of awards, and moving the meeting to a different location would disrupt the televised recording of the meeting and further delay the start of the meeting after parents and students had already been waiting for some time.

 

10.  It is found that in the past very few persons showed up for award presentations and it was a surprise to the respondents that so many individuals attended the first portion of the meeting in question.

 

11.  It is found that the respondent chairman’s decision and actions, under the facts and circumstances of this case, were reasonable and distinguishable from the situation in FIC 86-40.  Here, it is found that there was no intent on the part of the respondents to limit attendance of the public at the meeting by purposely selecting a facility smaller than would accommodate the huge crowd of persons expected.

 

12.  It is therefore, concluded 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.

 

 

 

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

November 10, 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:

 

 

George L. Bozzi, Jr.

17 Bayberry Drive

Walingford, CT  06492

 

Chairperson, Board of Education, Wallingford Public Schools; and Board of Education,

Wallingford Public Schools

c/o Atty. Richard D. O’Connor

Siegel, O’Connor, Schiff & Zangari, PC

150 Trumbull Street

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1999-284/FD/mrb/11151999