FIC2000-373

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Julia Davis,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-373
Board of Education, Town of New Canaan,
		Respondent	April 11, 2001

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 17, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At its meeting of September 27, 2000, the Commission considered the Hearing Officer’s Report dated August 31, 2000, after which the Commission referred the case back to the Hearing Officer to issue a revised Hearing Officer’s Report on the merits. The complainant then filed a November 3, 2000 request asking that the Commission take administrative notice of the entire record in contested case docket # FIC 2000-427, Hornblower v. Richards, Superintendent New Canaan Public Schools. After reviewing the issues to be addressed in this complaint, and those addressed in FIC 2000-427, such request is denied because even assuming that the complainant is accurate in indicating that “bus route deliberations were an overriding issue in the redistricting process”, that particular piece of information is neither relevant nor helpful to the Commission in addressing the specific and only issues raised in this complaint, namely, whether the respondent held unnoticed/secret meetings on or about May 12 and May 15, 2000.

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.

2. By letter dated July 18, 2000 and filed July 19, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that within the last thirty days it had come to her attention that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by holding “illegal quorum meetings/conferences via telephone” to discuss and sway other members in their voting of redistricting/enrollment issues.” At the hearing on this matter, the complainant, alleged more specifically that the respondent held:

a. an illegal quorum meeting on May 12, 2000 or sometime during the weekend of May 12, 2000; and

b. an illegal telephone conference on May 15, 2000.

3. Section §1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

Any person denied the right to … attend any meeting of a public agency … may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held. For purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked, if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such appeal is taken….[Emphasis added.]

4. It is found that the complainant received notice in fact on or about July 4, 2000 that the alleged May 12 and May 15, 2000 meetings occurred.

5. It is therefore concluded that the complaint was filed within the appropriate thirty-day period.

6. Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides that: "Meeting" means 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.

7. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the respondent is a nine member board; it is further found that no “quorum” of the respondent convened and discussed redistricting/enrollment issues on or over the week-end of May 12, 2000. It is also found that no “proceeding” of the respondent was held on or over the weekend of May 12, 2000 to discuss redistricting/enrollment issues.

8. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that the respondent did not hold a telephone “meeting” on May 15, 2000 to discuss redistricting/enrollment issues.

9. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not hold illegal quorum meetings/conferences via telephone as alleged in the complaint.

10. However, it is found that throughout the apparently controversial redistricting process, the Superintendent of the New Canaan Public Schools, in his role as chief administrative officer, had conversations/discussions with members of the respondent, during which he responded to questions, and clarified issues of concern to those members. It is found that typically such conversations/discussions arose at the request of a board member and were generally conducted one on one, either in person or on the telephone. It is also found that one such conversation/discussion may have occurred on or about May 4, 2000, during which the chairman, board member Cromwell and the superintendent were present. However, it is found that the conversations/discussions described herein do not constitute “meetings” of the respondent, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

11. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

12. The complainant’s request to continue the hearing for the taking of additional evidence is denied.

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 11, 2001.

_________________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

Julia Davis

229 Weed Street

New Canaan, CT 06840

Board of Education

Town of New Canaan

c/o Christine L. Chinni, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One American Row

Hartford, CT 06103-2819

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2000-373/FD/paj/04/12/2001