FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Richard A. Kontos, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-601 |
|
Board of Estimate and
Taxation, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 14, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This matter was heard as a contested case on March 31, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC1999-609; Richard A. Kontos against Board of Estimate and Taxation, Town of Greenwich.
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 9, 1999, postmarked December 11, 1999, and filed with the Commission on December 16, 1999, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to timely file the agenda for its meeting of November 15, 1999, and by failing to satisfy notice and other requirements of the FOI Act with respect to a caucus held on November 30, 1999.
3. Section 1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21, G.S.], provides in relevant part:
…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….
4. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on November 15, 1999.
5. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent conceded that it had not filed the agenda for its meeting of November 15, 1999, as required by §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21, G.S.]. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21, G.S.], with respect to the November 15, 1999 meeting, as alleged in the complaint.
6. It is found that the violation described in paragraph 5, above, was brought to the attention of the respondent by the complainant at the time of the November 15, 1999 meeting.
7. It is found that the respondent recognized its violation of the FOI Act with respect to its November 15, 1999 meeting, and that, soon thereafter, on November 22, 1999, it held a properly noticed special meeting during which it considered all business transacted at the November 15, 1999, meeting. It is further found that, at the November 22, 1999, special meeting, the chair of the respondent stated at the outset of such meeting that the respondent had failed to provide proper notice of the November 15, 1999, meeting, that such matter was brought to the attention of the respondent by the complainant, and that the record of the November 15, 1999 meeting was stricken. It is further found that, at the November 22, 1999, meeting, the complainant was given an opportunity to speak, and stated that he wished the record to reflect his comments from the November 15, 1999 meeting, and the fact that he was not frustrated by the improper posting of such meeting. Nevertheless, at the hearing in this matter, the complainant argued that the Commission must recognize the violation described in paragraph 5, above.
8. With respect to the allegation that the respondent violated the FOI Act by failing to satisfy notice and other requirements of the FOI Act relating to a caucus held on November 30, 1999, the complainant testified at the hearing in this matter that he filed the complaint with respect to the November 30, 1999, gathering based upon information gleaned from a newspaper article. The complainant further testified that he had no personal knowledge of the number or identity of the attendees of such gathering, but contended that the presence of the Republican Town Chair caused such gathering to become a public meeting, which should have been noticed pursuant to the FOI Act, and to which all other rights granted pursuant to such Act should attach.
9. Section 1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a, G.S.], defines a meeting to include:
…any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power…."Meeting" shall not include…a caucus of members of a single political party notwithstanding that such members also constitute a quorum of a public agency….
[Evidence added.]
10. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing in this matter, it is found that the November 30, 1999 gathering did not consist of a convening or assembly of a quorum of the members of the respondent to discuss or act upon a matter over which the respondent had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a, G.S.]. Accordingly, it is concluded that the attendance of the Republican chair at the November 30, 1999 gathering did not elevate such gathering to a public meeting, as alleged by the complainant.
11. Therefore, it is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the November 30, 1999 gathering, 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. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provision in §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21, G.S.], requiring that agendas of meetings be timely filed.
2. The complainant is advised that the Commission is experiencing a large backlog of cases and seeks to resolve undisputed matters without the need for costly and time-consuming administrative hearings. Considering the findings in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, above, this complaint might have been resolved through the Commission’s ombudsman process, and the complainant is urged to utilize such process in the future.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
June 14, 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:
Richard A. Kontos
30 Hunt Terrace
Glenville, CT 06831
Board of Estimate and Taxation, Town of Greenwich
c/o Atty. Aamina Ahmad
Assistant Town Attorney
Town Hall
101 Field Point Road, PO Box 2540
Greenwich, CT 06836-2540
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour