FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 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 dated February 13, 2002, and filed February 19, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the  Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to properly notice, include the public and provide minutes for a February 4, 2002 meeting.  The complainant requested that the Commission assess a civil penalty against the respondent.  

 

            3.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., 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.  The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, which minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.”

 

 

            4.  Section 1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

“[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…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.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency….”

 

            5.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines “meeting” in relevant part 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.  “Meeting” does not include…an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency….”

 

            6.  It is found that the residents of Newtown voted to establish a board of finance, and that such board was newly established in February 2002.  It is found that the authority of the newly established board of finance arguably overlaps the authority of the Newton legislative council, which also has authority over the town budget.  It is further found that such board is comprised of six members and that four members constitute a quorum.

 

7.  It is found that the Newton legislative council consists of twelve members and that seven members constitute a quorum.  It is also found that the Newtown board of selectmen consists of three members and that two members constitute a quorum.

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent first selectman is the chief executive officer of the Town of Newtown, and that, in such capacity, he is a single-member public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

            9.  It is found that, because of his concern about the apparent overlap in authority between the legislative council and the board of finance, the respondent invited the chairmen of such council and board of finance to a session on February 4, 2002.  It is further found that each chairman asked that his vice-chairman be included and that the respondent agreed to such inclusions. 

 

            10.  It is found that the respondent, the chairman and vice-chairman of the legislative council, the chairman of the finance committee of the legislative council, the chairman and vice chairman of the board of finance, and the town’s finance director, met on February 4, 2002, to discuss procedures to implement the smooth flow of the budget process, given the establishment of the board of finance.  It is found that, while the budget may have been incidentally mentioned in such discussion, the purpose of the gathering was to establish administrative parameters of the council and board in the upcoming budget approval process. 

 

            11.  It is found that the board of finance met in open session on February 5, 2002, and that the gathering described in paragraph 10, above, was revealed to the public at such time.  It is also found that the legislative council also revealed such gathering to the public at its next meeting. 

 

            12.  It is found that the gathering described in paragraph 10, above was not a hearing of a public agency, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.  It is also found that there was no quorum of any identifiable multimember public agency in attendance at such gathering. 

 

            13.  It is found that neither the board of selectman, the board of finance or the legislative council authorized any of its members to attend the gathering described in paragraph 10, above, prior to such event.  It is found that the February 4, 2002, gathering was not a proceeding of the respondent, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. 

 

            14.  It is found that the February 4, 2002, gathering was an administrative meeting of the first selectman, a single-member public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., and was not a meeting of the other agencies mentioned above. 

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the February 4, 2002, gathering was not a “meeting” of the respondent for purposes of the FOI Act, and that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, 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 January 22, 2003.

 

_______________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

William Sheluck, Jr.

36 Greenleaf Farms Road

Newtown, CT 06470

 

 

Herbert C. Rosenthal, First

Selectman, Town of Newtown

c/o Monte E. Frank, Esq.

Cohen & Wolf, P.C.

158 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

 

 

 

________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-070/FD/mes/1/23/2003