FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Bradshaw Smith,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 1999-618
Kathleen K. Quin, Town Clerk, Town of Windsor,
		Respondents	April 12, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 22, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., [(formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

 

            2.  By letter dated December 29, 1999 and filed on December 30, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to post the notices of 76 meetings of the Capitol Region Council of Governments (“CRCOG”) and 14 meetings of the Capitol Region Education Council (“CREC”).

 

3.  With respect to regular meetings, §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], provides, in relevant part: “The chief executive officer of any multitown district or agency shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year, with the clerk of each municipal member of such district or agency, 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.”

 

4.  With respect to special meetings, §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], requires that multitown districts or agencies file notice of each special meeting in the office of the clerk of each municipal member not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such special meeting.

 

5.  In addition, with respect to special meetings, §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], further provides in relevant part: “[T]he [town] clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office.” 

 

               6.  It is found that the complainant visited the respondent’s office and at that time inspected a binder containing what he believed to be all of the notices and agendas of the 1999 regular and special meetings of CRCOG and CREC.

 

               7.  It is found that the binder inspected by the complainant did not contain a “schedule of regular meetings” for CRCOG and CREC; that another binder contained the “schedule of regular meetings” for CRCOG and CREC, which binder the complainant was unaware of and did not inspect; that the complainant under the mistaken belief that no “schedule of regular meetings” existed on file for CRCOG and CREC proceeded to file this complaint, contending that since the 74 meetings of CRCOG and CREC specified in his complaint were not listed on any “schedule of regular meetings” in the binder he inspected, then all 74 meetings were therefore to be considered “special” meetings within the meaning of §1-225, G.S.[formerly §1-21(a), G.S.].

 

                8.  It is found that schedules of regular meetings for CRCOG and CREC do exist and were on file with the respondent at the time of the complainant’s visit to that office.

 

                9.  Further, it is found that the respondent posted all notices of meetings, which indicated that they pertained to “special” meetings, and which notices had been filed with her office by CRCOG and CREC and by various subcommittees of those agencies.

 

                10.  It is also found that the respondent posted the notices described in paragraph 9 above, on a notice board, which is accessible to the public. 

 

                11.  Further, it is concluded that contrary to the contention of the complainant, it is the public agency convening a special meeting whose responsibility it is to file the appropriately worded special meeting notice with the respondent.  

 

                12.  It is further concluded that the respondent is not required under any provision of the FOI Act to compare each notice received to the “schedule of regular meetings” and if the notice indicates a date other than one listed in such “schedule of regular meetings” to post such notice as a special meeting.  Any such action now undertaken by the respondent appears to be as a courtesy to the public agency, which has the ultimate responsibility for filing the appropriately worded notice.  The respondent’s responsibility in accordance with the language of §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], is to simply “cause any notice received … to be posted in his office.” [Emphasis added.]

 

                13.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent 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

April 12, 2000.

 

 

_________________________

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:

 

 

Bradshaw Smith

22 Ludlow Road

Windsor, CT  06095

 

 

Kathleen K. Quin, Town Clerk, Town of Windsor

c/o Atty. Vincent W. Oswecki

20 Maple Avenue

Windsor, CT  06095

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-618FD/mrb/04/19/00