FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Donna Accosta,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 1999-564
First Selectman, Town of Sherman; and Board of Selectmen, Town of Sherman,
		Respondents	June 28, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 9, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with contested case docket #FIC 1999-561, Warren L. Pitcher v. First Selectman, Town of Sherman; and Board of Selectmen, Town of Sherman and contested case docket #FIC 1999-574, Frances Murray, Natalie Sirkin and Thomas Piel v. First Selectman, Town of Sherman; and Second Selectman, Town of Sherman.

           

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 November 24, 1999 and filed on November 30, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

                        a.  holding an “illegal meeting” of the respondent board on November 12, 1999 during which an employee was fired; and

 

b. denying her request for a copy of the tape recording of the meeting.

 

3.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the respondent board held a special meeting on November 12, 1999, and at that time terminated the employment of an employee, Warren Pitcher (hereinafter “ special meeting”).

 

4.  Section 1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.] provides, in relevant part:

 

"Notice of each special meeting of every public agency … shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof … in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state ….  The secretary or clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office.  Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the special meeting… The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency."  [Emphasis added.]

 

5.  It is found that the notice of the special meeting indicates the following with respect to the business to be transacted:

 

To review correspondence for discussion and possible action.

 

1.      Grant Request- dated deadline

2.      Correspondence related to personnel

 

6.  It is found that the notice as described in paragraph 5, above, did not specify the business to be transacted with respect to the termination issue, within the meaning of  §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.]. 

 

7.  Further, it is found that the termination issue arose after the notice of the meeting had been filed on November 10, 1999, and accordingly constitutes “other business” precluded from being addressed at the meeting, within the meaning of §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.].

 

8.  It is found that members of the community, who would have attended the meeting had they had notice that the termination issue would be addressed, were caught by surprise when they became aware that the decision to terminate had been made at the meeting. 

 

 9.  It is concluded that the respondent board violated §1-225, G.S. [formerly §1-21-(a), G.S.] when it held the special meeting without proper notice of the business to be transacted as required by such provision. 

 

            10.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that the respondents have made available to the complainant the only tape recording that they have of the meeting.  It is also found that, unfortunately, such tape recording is not a complete recording of what transpired at the meeting, because of mechanical problems with the recording; however, the respondents have provided to the complainant a copy of the tape they have.

 

            11.  Consequently, the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint with respect to the request for the tape recording of the meeting because they provided the complainant with a copy of the tape they have.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the notice of special meeting requirements.

 

2.  A copy of the Final Decision in this matter shall be posted in a public and conspicuous place at the Sherman Town Hall for a period of not less than one month from the date of the Notice of the Final Decision.

 

 

 

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

June 28, 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:

 

 

Donna Accosta

Nine Atchison Cove

Sherman, CT  06784

 

First Selectman, Town of Sherman; and Board of Selectmen, Town of Sherman

c/o Atty. D. Randall DiBella

Cramer & Anderson

51 Main Street, PO Box 330

New Milford, CT  06776-0330

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1999-564FD/mrb/07/06/00