FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Bradshaw Smith, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-657 |
|
|
State of Connecticut, Connecticut |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 23, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 16, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
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 December 11, 2000, and filed on December 12, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to file notice of its November 16, 2000, special meeting [hereinafter “the assembly”] with the office of the secretary of the state.
3. It is found that the respondent did not file notice of the assembly with the office of the secretary of state.
4. Section §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 Secretary of the State for any such public agency 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….
5. The respondent first contends that the complainant is not aggrieved since he had actual notice of the assembly and that, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.
6. Section 1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[a]ny person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the [FOI] Act may appeal therefrom to the [FOI] Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission…
7. It is found that the complainant attended a November 2, 2000 meeting of the respondent, at which it was announced that the respondent would hold a work session on November 16, 2000 at 5:00 P.M., at Union Station, New Haven, to consider recommendations from members to be included in the respondent’s annual report, which session was the assembly referred to in paragraph 2, above. It is also found that the respondent mailed a copy of the minutes of the November 2, 2000 meeting to the complainant, which minutes reference the planned assembly. It is also found, however, that the complainant did not receive such minutes prior to the assembly, and that, despite his attendance at the November 2, 2000 meeting, he did not hear the specifics of the time and place of the assembly. Accordingly, it is found that the complainant did not have actual notice of the assembly.
8. Moreover, it is concluded that actual notice of the assembly would not deprive the complainant of the right to the filed notice required by §1-225(d), G.S., and that the Commission has jurisdiction over the allegation raised in the complaint.
9. The respondent next contends that the assembly was not a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., as the assembly lacked a quorum. Accordingly, the respondent contends that no notice was required by §1-225(d), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.
10. Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines "meeting" as “… 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.”
11. It is found that the respondent is a 24-member commission, and that, pursuant to §13b-11a(a), G.S., 19 such members have authority to vote. It is also found that, pursuant to §13b-11a(i), G.S., a quorum of the respondent consists of a majority of its voting members, and that a quorum is required to conduct a vote.
12. It is found that 8 voting members of the respondent met on November 16, 2000, that such number does not constitute a quorum of the respondent, and that no votes were taken at such time, although such members engaged in a discussion concerning assignments for the annual report.
13. It is found that the assembly was not a hearing or proceeding and was not otherwise “meeting” of the respondent within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.
14. However, it is also concluded that nothing in the FOI Act exempts work sessions from the meeting provisions imposed upon public agencies in the FOI Act. It is found that, prior to the convening of the assembly, the respondent was not aware that the assembly would be attended by less than a quorum of its members. Accordingly, it is further concluded that the respondent should have filed notice of the assembly, since it was only pure happenstance that a quorum of the respondent failed to attend the assembly.
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 May 23, 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:
Bradshaw Smith
23 Ludlow Road
Windsor, CT 06095
State
of Connecticut, Connecticut
Public
Transportation Commission
c/o
Charles H. Walsh, Esq.
Assistant
Attorney General
55
Elm Street, 3rd floor annex
Hartford,
CT 06106
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-657/FD/paj/05/25/2001