|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Mary
Adamowski, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-343 |
|
Thomas Bunk, Chairman, Parks Commission, Town of Seymour; Mike Gagliardi; Louis DeBarber; Kevin Murphy; Paul Sponheimer, Jr., as members, Parks Commission, Town of Seymour; and Parks Commission, Town of Seymour, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December
22, 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 23, 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. By letter of complaint dated July 20, 1999 and filed on July 22, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:
a. holding an unnoticed or secret meeting on June 22, 1999 concerning the new football/soccer field project at Seymour High School (hereinafter “project”);
b. conducting a private telephone vote at the secret meeting described in a) above; and
c. as of July 19, 1999, failing to have available for public inspection minutes of such secret meeting.
3. The complainant requested in her complaint that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.
4. Section 1-200(2), G.S., [formerly 1-18a(2), G.S.], in relevant part, defines meeting to include:
any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency … by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
5. Section 1-225(a), G.S., [formerly§1-21(a), G.S.] further provides:
The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions … shall be open to the public. The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, which minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.
6. At the outset of the hearing on this matter, the respondents conceded that on June 22, 1999, all of the members of the respondent commission spoke by telephone and voted on an issue concerning the project.
7. It is found that the respondent commission reported in its special meeting agenda of July 1, 1999 that the June 22, 1999 telephone vote occurred and that such vote was unanimous.
8. It is concluded that the June 22, 1999 telephone discussion, described in paragraph 6 above, constituted a meeting of the respondent commission within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., [formerly 1-18a(2), G.S.], because a quorum of the respondent commission discussed and acted, by telephone, on a matter over which the respondent commission has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
9. It is further concluded that the meeting was not “open to the public” within the meaning of §1-225(a), G. S, [formerly§1-21(a), G.S.], and therefore, the respondents violated such provision. It is also concluded that the respondents violated §1-225(a), G. S., [formerly§1-21(a), G.S.], by failing to issue notice of the June 22, 1999 telephone meeting, and failing to have available minutes for public inspection within seven days of such meeting.
10. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent chairman indicated that until the complaint was brought in this case he was unaware that the June 22, 1999 telephone discussion and vote did not comply with the requirements of the FOI Act. In addition, the First Selectman of the town of Seymour indicated at the hearing on this matter that since becoming aware of the complaint, he has informed all boards in the town that such telephone discussions and votes are not in keeping with the open meeting requirements of the FOI Act.
11. With respect to the request for civil penalties, the Commission does not find that there was any intent on the part of the respondents to conduct business in secret, or to conceal from the public the fact that the respondent commission did in fact vote by telephone on June 22, 1999. Therefore, it is found that civil penalties are not appropriate in this case.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent commission shall prepare minutes of the June 22, 1999 telephone meeting, which minutes shall be filed in the office of the town clerk no later than seven business days from the date of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter.
2. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the meeting provisions set forth in the FOI Act.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
December 22, 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:
Mary Adamowski
18 Cherry Street
Seymour, CT 06483
Thomas Bunk, Chairman, Parks Commission, Town of Seymour; Mike Gagliardi; Louis DeBarber; Kevin Murphy; Paul Sponheimer, Jr., as members, Parks Commission, Town of Seymour; and Parks Commission, Town of Seymour
c/o Atty. Steven P. Kulas
May and Stanek, PC
12 Bank Street, PO Box 903
Seymour, CT 06483
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-343FD/mrb/12/27/1999