FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Denis O’Sullivan, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-368 |
|
|
Fire District
Commission, Town |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
May 9, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 11, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed on August 22, 2000, pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S. was denied by the hearing officer.
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 the complainant attended the respondent’s July 10, 2000 public
hearing (hereinafter “July public hearing”) during which a document
dealing with wastewater treatment and disposal options was distributed, and
which, in relevant part, indicated the following:
Based
on these recent changes, it is the …[respondent’s] recommendation that the
District connect to the Watertown and Waterbury systems and no longer own and
operate a separate District facility….
3.
It is
found that during the July public hearing, the complainant questioned how and
when the respondent arrived at the recommendation, described in paragraph 2,
above, to which the chairman of the respondent informed the complainant that a
telephone poll of the members of the respondent had been conducted.
4.
By
letter dated July 11, 2000 and filed on July 14, 2000, the complainant then
appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom
of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to conduct the public’s business
at a publicly held meeting. The
complainant requested as a remedy that the respondent’s members be required
to attend an FOI workshop.
5.
Section
1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:
“meeting”
means … 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.
6. Section 1-225(a), G.S., further provides in relevant part:
“[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined
in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”
7. It is found that during April, 2000 the respondent held a
public hearing at which it discussed various wastewater treatment options for
the District, including rehabilitating its existing facility or abandoning it
and discharging it’s wastewater through the town of Watertown for treatment,
and disposal at the city of Waterbury’s treatment facility (hereinafter “April
public hearing”).
8. It is found that the respondent adjourned the April public
hearing with the expectation that the wastewater treatment options discussion
would be continued after acquiring additional information on the issues.
9. It is found that following the April public hearing the
respondent’s chairman received an opinion from the District’s technical
consultants (the Superintendent of the District in consultation with the
District’s engineers), indicating that operation of the District’s own
facility was no longer an achievable option because the state Department of
Environmental Protection (hereinafter “DEP”) had recently set more
stringent copper discharge limits. Accordingly,
the technical consultants recommended to the respondent that the District
connect to the Watertown and Waterbury systems. The technical consultants’ recommendation was made public
at the respondent’s regular meeting of June 12, 2000, as indicated in the
respondent’s minutes. However,
such minutes do not reflect that the respondent voted or agreed upon the
option it would recommend for the District.
10.
It is found that the chairman of the respondent, after receiving the
technical consultants’ recommendation, “polled” the respondent’s
members by telephone to determine how each felt about the DEP standards and
the consultants’ recommendation. Each
agreed that the District had no alternative but to connect to the Watertown
and Waterbury system. They also
agreed to discuss the matter further at a public hearing, which hearing has
been referred to herein as the July public hearing.
11.
It is found that the telephone poll conversation between the chairman
and the members of the respondent constituted “communication …to a quorum
of a multimember public agency … by means of electronic equipment,” during
which the respondent discussed and agreed, albeit informally, to recommend
that the District connect to the Watertown and Waterbury system, a matter over
which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power”
within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. It
is found that the agreement on the phone was tantamount to a vote (albeit in
private) on the wastewater treatment matter.
That agreement, or as the chairman of the respondent characterizes it,
“consensus” should have appropriately taken place in public.
12.
It is therefore concluded that the telephone poll conversation was a
“meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2),
G.S.
13.
It is further concluded, based on the facts and circumstance of this
case, that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S., when by telephone poll
the respondent agreed on the wastewater treatment option it would recommend to
the District.
14.
It is also concluded that nothing in the record suggests that the
chairman or the respondent intentionally tried to circumvent open and public
discussions concerning the wastewater treatment matter.
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 meeting provisions of the FOI Act.
2. The Commission believes that an FOI workshop may be helpful to the members of the respondent, particularly, in clarifying when discussions, whether in person or on the telephone, among members of the respondent constitute “meetings”. Such a workshop is recommended.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 9, 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:
Denis O'Sullivan
238 North Street
Watertown, CT 06795
Fire District Commission
Town of Watertown
c/o Franklin G. Pilicy, Esq.
365 Main Street, PO Box 760
Watertown, CT 06795-0760
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-368/FD/paj/05/14/2001