FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Mark S. D’Onofrio and Orange Police |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket # FIC 2001-092 |
|
|
Pension Board, Town of Orange, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
April 25, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 19, 2001, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2001-069; Mark S. D’Onofrio and Orange Police Union, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local #349 v. Pension Board, Town of Orange.
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. It is found that, by letter dated February 15, 2001, the complainants requested that the Orange Town Clerk provide them with a copy of the agenda for the January 18, 2001, meeting of the respondent. It is further found that such clerk was not in receipt of such agenda at that time.
3. By letter dated February 15, 2001, and filed with the Commission on February 20, 2001, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to file the agenda of the January 18, 2001, meeting of the respondent with the Orange Town Clerk, and by failing to amend its schedule of regular meetings filed with such clerk, to indicate a change of meeting date from January 19, 2001, to January 18, 2001. At the hearing in this matter, the complainants also alleged that the respondent failed to vote by two-thirds majority to add new business to its January 18, 2001 agenda. However, such allegation shall not be addressed herein since it was not fairly raised in the compliant; moreover, such allegation is time-barred, pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S.
4. With respect to the allegation that the respondent failed to amend its schedule of regular meetings filed with the Orange Town Clerk to indicate a change of meeting date from January 19, 2001, to January 18, 2001, §1-225(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
“…the chairperson or secretary of any such public agency of any political subdivision of the state shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year, with the clerk of such subdivision 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…”.
5. It is found that the respondent filed a schedule of regular meetings with the Orange Town Clerk, as required by §1-225(b), G.S. It is also found that, through inadvertent error, such schedule indicated a date of January 19, 2001, rather than January 18, 2001. It is further found that the respondent conducted a meeting on January 18, 2001, and that the respondent did not conduct a meeting on January 19, 2001.
6. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent stipulated that it violated the FOI Act by failing to correct the error described in paragraph 5, above, and by failing to file notice of the January 18, 2001, meeting with the Orange Town Clerk.
7. It is concluded that the failure to correct the schedule of regular meetings described in paragraph 5, above, required the January 18, 2001, meeting of the respondent to be noticed and held as a special meeting.
8. With respect to the allegation that the respondent failed to file the agenda of its January 18, 2001, meeting with the Orange Town Clerk, §1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[n]otice 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 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….
9. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent stipulated that it violated the FOI Act by failing to file the agenda of its January 18, 2001, meeting with the Orange Town Clerk.
10. It is concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(d), G.S., by failing to file notice of its January 18, 2001, meeting, and specifying the business to be transacted at such meeting, as required by such provision.
11. It is found that, at the January 18, 2001, meeting, the respondent voted to add retroactive pay to wages, in light of a settlement agreement, which business was not included on the agenda for such meeting. At the hearing in this matter, the complainants requested that the actions taken at the January 18, 2001 meeting of the respondent be declared null and void.
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 provisions of §1-225(d), G.S.
2. The actions taken at the January 18, 2001 meeting of the respondent are hereby declared null and void.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 25, 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:
Mark S. D'Onofrio and Orange
Police Union, International Brotherhood
of Police Officers, Local # 349
c/o Christopher M. Licari, Esq.
Licari & Walsh, LLC
105 Court Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Pension Board
Town of Orange
c/o Dean R. Singewald II, Esq.
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-092/FD/paj/05/02/2001