FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Jeannine Jandreau, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-167 | ||
| Town Council, Town of Plymouth, | |||
| Respondent | August 28, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 25, 2002, 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 of complaint, dated April 10, 2002, and filed with the Commission on April 15, 2002, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act on April 9, 2002 during a special meeting by transacting “other business” or business not noticed on the special meeting agenda.
3. It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on April 9, 2002 (hereinafter “meeting”).
4. It is found that the agenda or notice of the meeting reads in relevant part:
“6. Take action to authorize the appropriation for settlement of C.J. Lawlor & Associates lawsuit…
9. Other Business”
5. It is found that during the meeting the respondent, under item 6 of the agenda voted to recommend an appropriation of $150,000 to the Board of Finance as settlement of the C.J. Lawlor & Associates lawsuit. It is also found that under item 9 of the agenda, the respondent voted to discuss setting a date, and voted to set the date for a special town meeting to be held on April 23, 2002 regarding settlement of the C.J. Lawlor & Associates lawsuit.
6. With respect to giving notice of special meetings, §1-225(d), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Notice 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 … clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office. Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the special meeting…. 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….” [Emphasis added.]
7. It is found that at the time the agenda was created and filed item 6 on such agenda was intended to give notice that the respondent would recommend an appropriation for the lawsuit settlement. It is found that during the meeting the respondent realized, after being informed by the Comptroller at such meeting, that any appropriation in excess of $50,000 would require the convening of a special town meeting. Accordingly, during the meeting the respondent went on to discuss, and vote to set a special town meeting date of April 23, 2002, for the consideration of the $150,000 appropriation in connection with settling the lawsuit.
8. It is found that while the meeting agenda does not indicate that the respondent would discuss and vote on a special town meeting date at which the $150,000 appropriation in connection with settling the lawsuit would be addressed, such discussion and vote was not concerning an entirely new item of business that was not noticed on the meeting agenda. Rather, it is found that such discussion and vote falls directly within the purview of item 6 on the agenda, which item fairly apprised the public that the respondent would take action to authorize the appropriation in connection with settling of the C.J. Lawler & Associates lawsuit. While it is found that the respondent should have discussed the special town meeting issue under item 6 of its agenda, it is also found that the respondent did not discuss “other business”, i.e. business not otherwise noticed on the April 9, 2002 meeting agenda, when it discussed the calling of a special town meeting in connection with the $150,000 appropriation to settle the lawsuit.
9. Therefore, under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that because the business transacted by the respondent concerning the call of a special town meeting in connection with the $150,000 appropriation was not in substance “other business”, but business that was in fact already noticed on the agenda, at item 6, the respondent did not violate §1-225(d), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.
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 August 28, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Jeannine Jandreau
34 South Main Street
Terryville, CT 06786
Town Council, Town of Plymouth
c/o Thomas W. Conlin, Esq.
140 Farmington Avenue
Bristol, CT 06010
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-167/FD/paj/8/29/2002