FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Thomas J. Doyle, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-072 | ||
| Board of Education, City of Bristol, | |||
| Respondents | September 25, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 4, 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 February 19, 2002, and filed with the Commission on February 20, 2002, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to have available on February 15, 2002, the minutes of the respondent’s meeting of February 6, 2002.
3. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on February 6, 2002.
4. It is found that the complainant visited the Superintendent of Schools’ (“Superintendent”) office on February 15, 2002 and at that time requested the minutes of the respondent’s February 6, 2002 meeting.
5. The respondent concedes that the February 6, 2002 meeting minutes were not available at the time of the complainant’s visit, as described in paragraph 4, above.
6. It is found that the minutes of the February 6, 2002 regular meeting were ready and available for public inspection on February 19, 2002, and the respondent so informed the complainant. It is also found that the complainant visited the Superintendent’s office on February 20, 2002 and inspected the subject minutes.
7. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part: “…minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.” [Emphasis added.]
8. Section §1-225(g), G.S., further provides that: “In determining the time within which or by when … minutes of a special meeting or an emergency special meeting are required to be filed under this section, Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and any day on which the office of the agency, the Secretary of the State or the clerk of the applicable political subdivision or the clerk of each municipal member of any multitown district or agency, as the case may be, is closed, shall be excluded.” [Emphasis added.]
9. It is found that the minutes at issue do not pertain to “a special meeting or an emergency special meeting” within the meaning of §1-225(g), G.S., and therefore Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and any day on which the respondent’s office is closed, is not excluded in determining when the minutes are to be made available for public inspection.
10. It is found that the minutes at issue should have been available for public inspection by February 13, 2002, seven days after the meeting in question, pursuant to §1-225(a), G.S.
11. It is concluded that the respondent failed to have the minutes of the regular meeting of February 6, 2002 available for public inspection within seven days of such meeting, and consequently, the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S.
12. At the hearing in this matter the respondent presented evidence that the Superintendent has since taken sufficient action to ensure that the minutes are available within the required statutory period. Specifically, the Superintendent issued a memorandum dated April 4, 2002 to all staff concerned, setting forth the FOI Act requirements as they relate to providing minutes of Board of Education meetings. The memorandum provides in relevant part:
Please be reminded that under the Freedom of Information
Act, minutes of meetings of the Board of Education and all Board
Committees must be made available to the public within seven (7)
days after the meeting. Failure to comply with this requirement
can lead to legal penalties.
Accordingly, production of minutes of Board and committee meetings should take priority over all other clerical and secretarial tasks….
13. The complainant’s request that the fees for copies of minutes in the case of disabled or retired persons be lowered from the statutory rate is denied. This Commission has no authority to lower the cost provisions set forth by the legislature. Pursuant to §1-212(a), G.S., the respondent may charge a fee for copies not exceeding fifty cents per page.
14. Finally, based on the facts and circumstances of this case it is concluded that a civil penalty is not an appropriate remedy in this case. Accordingly, the complainant’s request for a civil penalty is denied.
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 minutes provision set forth at §1-225(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 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:
Board of Education,
City of Bristol
c/o Brian Clemow, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103-2819
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-072/FD/paj/9/26/2002