FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Bijan Bahramian, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-321 |
|
|
Frank
J. Kogut; Noreen A. Tow, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 13, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on April 10, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondents
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 respondents are
public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated June
22, 2000 and filed on June 26, 2000 the complainant appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondents and the superintendent of Meriden
Public Schools (hereinafter “superintendent”) violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by conducting unnoticed meetings to negotiate the
terms of the superintendent’s new contract.
The complainant requested that the Commission impose the maximum civil
penalty against the respondents and the superintendent.
3.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainant contended that the Commission should have named
the superintendent as a party respondent in this matter.
4.
Section 1-21j-30 of
the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provide in relevant part that:
(a)
In issuing the notice
of hearing described in section 1-21j-34 of the Regulations of Connecticut
State Agencies, the executive director or his or her designee shall designate
as a party any person known to the commission whose legal rights, duties or
privileges are required by statute to be determined by a commission proceeding
and who is required by law to be a party in a commission proceeding, and any
person whose participation as a party is then deemed to be necessary to the
proper disposition of such proceeding.
(b)
Subsequent to the
issuance of the notice of hearing, the commission or the presiding officer
shall grant a person status as a party in a contested case if the commission
or the presiding officer finds that: (1) such person has submitted a written
petition to the commission and served copies on all parties, at least five (5)
days before the date of hearing; and (2) the petition states facts that
demonstrate that the petitioner’s legal rights, duties or privileges shall
be specifically affected by the commission’s decision in the contested case. The five-day requirement in this subsection may be waived at
any time before or after commencement of the hearing by the commission or the
presiding officer on a showing of good cause.
5.
It is found that the
superintendent is not a member of the respondent board and that there is no
evidence in the record to support a finding that the superintendent was
involved in planning the alleged unnoticed meetings.
6.
It is also found that
the complainant failed to demonstrate that, at the time of the complaint in
this matter, the commission knew of any facts establishing that the
superintendent’s legal rights, duties or privileges were required by statute
to be determined by the hearing in this matter, that she was required by law
to be a party in this matter or that she was necessary to the proper
disposition of this matter.
7.
It is further found
that no additional facts have come to the attention of the Commission to
establish that the superintendent’s legal rights, duties or privileges are
required by statute to be determined by the hearing in this matter, that she
is required by law to be a party in this matter or that she is necessary to
the proper disposition of this matter so as to require the adding of the
superintendent as an additional party respondent.
Therefore, the complainant’s request that she be made a party
respondent in this matter is denied.
8.
With respect to the
substance of the complainant’s complaint against the respondents,
§1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[m]eeting
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.
9.
Section 1-225(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies . . .
shall be open to the public.”
10.
Section
1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
notice
of each special meeting of every public agency . . . shall be given not less
that twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of
the time and place . . . 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.
11.
It
is found that on May 30, 2000, the respondents Frank J. Kogut and Noreen A.
Tow met with the superintendent at Friendly’s restaurant to have breakfast
and to remind the superintendent that she should be prepared to present any
terms she would like included in her contract at the respondent board’s next
meeting (hereinafter “the Friendly’s gathering”).
12.
It is found that the
respondents did not file a notice of the Friendly’s gathering with the
Meriden Town Clerk.
13.
It is found that the
respondent board is a nine member board and that Kogut and Tow did not
constitute a quorum of the respondent board.
14.
It is therefore
concluded that the Friendly’s gathering did not constitute a convening or
assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, or communication by or to
a quorum of a multimember public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.
15.
It is found that
Kogut and Tow met with the superintendent without the knowledge of the other
members of the respondent board or its authority and were not acting in their
official capacity as board members.
16.
It is also found that
while the Friendly’s gathering lasted approximately thirty minutes, the
discussion between Kogut and Tow and the superintendent that pertained to the
superintendent’s contract lasted less than ten minutes. The contract
discussion consisted of a reminder, from Kogut and Tow, that the
superintendent’s contract would be discussed at the next meeting of the
respondent board and the superintendent mentioned some of the contract terms
she wanted changed or added to the new contract.
17.
It is also found that
neither Kogut nor Tow negotiated any terms of the contract with the
superintendent, agreed to support any terms mentioned by the superintendent,
nor did they report any of the substance of their discussion with the
superintendent to the respondent board.
18.
It is further found
that Kogut, Tow and the superintendent spent most of their time eating
breakfast and talking with other friends at the restaurant about matters
unrelated to the business of the respondent board.
19.
It is concluded
therefore that the Friendly’s gathering did not constitute a “hearing”
or “other proceeding” of the respondent board within the meaning of
§1-200(2), G.S.
20.
It is concluded
therefore, that the Friendly’s gathering did not constitute a “meeting”
of the respondent board within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., and that the
respondents did not violate the FOI Act under the facts and circumstances of
this case.
21.
Accordingly, the
complainant’s request for the imposition of civil penalties against the
respondents is denied.
22.
On April 16, 2000 the
complainant submitted a brief to the undersigned hearing officer, along with
copies of newspaper articles and an affidavit.
23.
It is found that the
complainant attempted to submit the newspaper articles described in paragraph
22, above, during the hearing on this matter, at which time the hearing
officer determined that they were not relevant and declined to admit them into
the evidentiary record, over the complainant’s numerous and vehement
objections.
24.
With respect to the
affidavit described in paragraph 22, above, it is found that the hearing
officer did not request or grant permission to either party to submit
additional exhibits or written testimony following the hearing on this matter.
25.
Consequently, the
newspaper articles and the affidavit described in paragraph 22, above, have
not been considered in this case.
26.
Furthermore, it is
found that during the hearing on this matter, the complainant was continuously
rude to Commission counsel, argumentative with the hearing officer and failed
to follow the directives of both the hearing officer and Commission counsel.
27.
It is further found
that the complainant’s behavior described in paragraph 26, above, was so
volatile that the hearing had to be recessed and continued in the presence of
a state trooper.
28.
It is further
concluded that the complainant’s behavior during and after the hearing on
this matter constituted an abuse of the Commission’s administrative process.
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.
2. The Commission notes that the complainant’s conduct at the hearing was entirely inappropriate and unnecessary. The Commission strongly admonishes the complainant for such conduct.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 13, 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:
Bijan Bahramian
129 Lydale Place
Meriden, CT 06450
Frank
J. Kogut; Noreen A. Tow,
as
members, Board of Education,
Meriden
Public Schools; and
Board
of Education, Meriden
Public
Schools,
c/o Thomas B. Mooney, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin LLP
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103-2819
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-321/FD/paj/06/18/2001