|
FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Robert Faro, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-235 |
|
|
Robert
Morton, Chairman, Southington Enterprise |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December 8, 1999 |
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 10, 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 commission held a regular meeting on April 20, 1999, (hereinafter “the meeting”).
3. By letter dated and filed on May 18, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act with respect to the meeting by failing to specify the place of the meeting in the meeting notice. The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties and a written apology from respondent Weichsel, due to the fact that respondent Weichsel refused to allow the complainant to speak at the meeting.
4. Section 1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part:
[t]he meetings of all public agencies…shall be open to the public….The chairman or secretary of any such public agency of any political subdivision of the state shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year, with the clerk of such subdivision the schedule of regular meetings of such public agency for the ensuing year, and no such meeting of any such public agency shall be held sooner than thirty days after such schedule has been filed….The agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency, except for the general assembly, shall be available to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer, in such agency's regular office or place of business or, if there is no such office or place of business, in the office…of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state….
5. It is found that the schedule of regular meetings of the respondent commission indicated that the meeting would be held in the respondent commission’s office at Southington Town Hall.
6. It is found, however, that the meeting was held in a conference room in Southington police headquarters. It is further found that the meeting was well attended by the public and members of the press.
7. It is found that, on April 21, 1999, the respondents posted a notice at town hall indicating that the remaining two regular meetings of the respondent commission, set for June 15, 1999, and August 17, 1999, would be held at the conference room at police headquarters; additionally, it is found that, after April 20, 1999, the previously posted schedule of regular meetings was amended to read that the respondents’ remaining regular meetings would occur at the conference room at Southington police headquarters.
8. It is found that, on April 20, 1999, the complainant was given contradictory information by town officials as to the place of the meeting, including that the meeting would occur at the respondent commission’s office, as per the notice of regularly scheduled meetings, and at police headquarters. Nevertheless, it is found that the complainant arrived at the conference room at police headquarters before the meeting and, in fact, attended the meeting.
9. It is further found that the complainant attempted to inform the respondents of the problem with the notification of place of meeting at the start of the meeting, and was at first not permitted to speak. It is further found that, at a later point during the meeting, the complainant was allowed to express his concerns about the notification.
10. Since the FOI Act does not mandate that individuals have a right to participate at meetings of public agencies, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by refusing to allow the complainant to speak at the start of the meeting.
11. The respondents first contend that the complainant’s attendance at the meeting effected a waiver of his right to file a complaint with respect to notice of the meeting.
12. It is concluded that the complainant’s attendance at the meeting did not effect a waiver of his right to file the complaint in this matter.
13. The respondents next contend that §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], does not mandate that the schedule of regular meetings of public agencies include place of meeting and that the failure to correct the place of the meeting prior to the meeting was an oversight, which was quickly corrected the following day.
14. However, §1-230, G.S. [formerly §1-21f, G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
…[a]…public agency shall provide by regulation, in the case of a state agency, or by ordinance or resolution in the case of an agency of a political subdivision, the place for holding its regular meetings….If it shall be unsafe to meet in the place designated, the meetings may be held at such place as is designated by the presiding officer of the public agency; provided a copy of the minutes of any such meeting adequately setting forth the nature of the emergency and the proceedings occurring at such meeting shall be filed with the Secretary of the State or the clerk of the political subdivision, as the case may be, not later than seventy-two hours following the holding of such meeting.
15. It is concluded that, in order to give meaningful effect to the requirement that public agencies give adequate notice of their regular meetings, §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], requires that such agencies provide notification of date, time, and place of meeting.
16. The Commission takes administrative notice of the ordinances of the Town of Southington as filed in the State Library and finds that such ordinances do not provide the place of the regular meetings of its agencies.
17. It is found that the respondents failed to prove that the original place of the meeting, as indicated in the schedule of regular meetings as it appeared on April 20, 1999, was unsafe within the meaning of §1-230, G.S. [formerly §1-21f, G.S.].
18. It is concluded that, as of the time of the start of the meeting, the respondents had provided inadequate notice of the meeting in violation of the FOI Act.
19. The Commission notes, that, as of April 21, 1999, the respondents have corrected their notification error.
20. The Commission declines to impose civil penalties or the other relief requested by the complainant as described in paragraph 3, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. In consideration of paragraph 19 of the findings, above, no order is recommended.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
December 8, 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:
Robert Faro
PO Box 177
Milldale, CT 06467
Robert Morton, Chairman, Southington Enterprise Zone and Economic Development Commission, Town of Southington; John Weichsel, member, Southington Enterprise Zone and Economic Development Commission, Town of Southington; Southington Enterprise Zone and Economic Development Commission, Town of Southington;
and Town of Southington
c/o Atty. John T. Nugent
97 North Main Street
Southington, CT 06489
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-235FD/mrb/
1/10/2000