FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 15, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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.  It is found that the Regional School District #8 [hereinafter “RHAM”] comprises the towns of Hebron, Andover and Marlborough.  It is found that the town of Marlborough’s contribution to the RHAM budget is a significant part of the Marlborough town budget each year. 

 

            3.  It is also found that, on June 5, 2002, the respondent chairman became aware that a referendum would be held on June 12, 2002, in Marlborough to approve or disapprove the proposed RHAM budget, when he read such news in the Hartford Courant. 

 

            4.  It is found that, in order to meet the publishing deadline of June 5, 2002, in Rivereast, the local newspaper, the respondent chairman contacted regular members of the respondent board by telephone and e-mail to determine if they would agree to issue a press release endorsing the proposed RHAM budget.  It is found that such conversations and communications occurred outside public view, and without prior notice to the public.

 

            5.  It is found that, during the conversations and communications described in paragraph 4, above, members of the respondent board who has been contacted agreed to issue a press release and that, accordingly, the respondent chairman submitted a press release to the local newspaper endorsing the proposed RHAM budget on behalf of the respondent board, and that such press release was published in such newspaper on June 7, 2002.

 

            6.  It is found that, by letter dated June 10, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with documentation of the vote of the respondent board which authorized the endorsement described in paragraph 5, above. 

 

            7.  It is found that, on June 19, 2002, the complainant received a copy of the minutes of the June 12, 2002 meeting of the respondent board, which contained a description of a discussion among the members of such board concerning the events described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above.

 

8.  By letter dated June 21, 2002, and filed on June 25, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act in the following respects:

 

a.  conducting an unnoticed meeting on June 5, 2002;

b.  failing to record the votes taken at the alleged unnoticed June 5, 2002, meeting within forty-eight hours;

 

c.  failing to contact all members of the respondent board on June 5, 2002, prior to submitting the press release for publication.

 

            9.  It is concluded that the allegation described in paragraph 8.c, above, does not allege a violation of the FOI Act, and therefore, such allegation shall not be addressed herein.

 

            10.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 8.a, above, §1-200(2), G.S., defines “meeting” in relevant part as:  “…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 telephone and e-mail poll described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, constituted “communication by or to a quorum” of the board, “by means of electronic equipment”, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

12.  The respondents contend that, since the RHAM budget is not a matter over which the respondents have supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, the communications and conversations described in paragraph 4, above, do not constitute a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

            13.  However, it is found that the respondents had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power over whether they should attempt to influence public opinion on the RHAM budget referendum, the outcome of which had serious ramifications to the budget of Marlborough and the respondent board’s jurisdiction.

 

14.  It is therefore concluded that the telephone and e-mail poll described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, constituted a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

            15.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that: “[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….”

 

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

 

[N]otice of each special meeting of every public agency… 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….Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the special meeting; provided, in case of emergency…any such special meeting may be held without complying with the foregoing requirement for the filing of notice but a copy of the minutes of every such emergency special meeting adequately setting forth the nature of the emergency and the proceedings occurring at such meeting shall be filed with the…clerk of such political subdivision…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….

 

            17.  The respondents contend that an emergency existed, since a delay of twenty-four hours to convene a special meeting to discuss the press release would have resulted in the respondents’ missing the publishing deadline of the newspaper, and would have deprived the respondents of the ability to endorse the RHAM budget in the newspaper. 

 

            18.  It is found however, that the respondents’ need to submit a press release to a local newspaper on June 5, 2002, did not constitute an “emergency”, within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S. 

 

            19.  Therefore, it is concluded that the respondents violated §§1-225(a) and 1-225(d), G.S., by failing to provide the public with twenty-four hours notice of the special meeting held on June 5, 2002, and by failing to open such meeting to the public, as alleged in paragraph 8.a, above.

 

            20.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 8.b, above, §1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that: “…[t]he 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.

 

21.  It is found that, although no formal vote was taken on June 5, 2002, the telephone and e-mail poll described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, was tantamount to a vote.  It is further found that such vote was not reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours, as mandated by §1-225(a), G.S.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated §1-225(a), G.S., as alleged in paragraph 8.b, above.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the notice and meeting requirements set forth at §1-225, G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

April 23, 2003.

 

 

_______________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

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:

 

Kenneth A. Hjulstrom

181 South Main Street

Marlborough, CT  06447

 

Chairman, Board of Finance,

Town of Marlborough; and

Board of Finance, Town of

Marlborough

c/o William S. Fish, Jr., Esq.

Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn LLP

CityPlace I, 35^th floor

Hartford, CT  06103-3488

 

 

_______________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2002-280/FD/abg/04/25/2003