FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 20, 2003, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket # FIC 2003-003, Steven A. Ledewitz against Amity Special Review Committee, Board of Education, Amity Regional School District #51.

           

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 e-mail dated September 4, 2002, and filed on September 5, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by holding “closed-door meetings” and allowing participation by board members via teleconference during a meeting of the respondent on August 20, 2002.

 

3.  By e-mail dated on September 29, 2002, and filed with the Commission on October 3, 2002, the complainant clarified her complaint to additionally allege that on both September 15 and 21, 2002, the respondent held unnoticed meetings to discuss the preparation of a questionnaire and that on September 23, 2002, the respondent held an unnoticed meeting with another individual to discuss substantive matters relating to the respondent.

 

 

 

 

 

Docket #FIC 2002-409                                                                                               Page 2

 

 

4.  At the hearing on this matter, the hearing officer granted the respondent’s motion to quash subpoenas.

 

5.  The respondent’s motion to strike the complainant’s brief is hereby denied.

 

6.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“Meeting” 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.

 

7.  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.” 

 

8.  It is found that the respondent is comprised of three members of the Amity Regional School District #5 Board of Education: Chairman William Blake, Leonard Bell and Paul Sprague.

 

9.  It is found that the questionnaire referenced in paragraph 3, above, was created solely by Chairman Blake.

 

10.  It is also found that after Chairman Blake drafted the questionnaire, he sent copies of it to the two other members of the respondent as a courtesy.

 

11.  It is found that Chairman Blake did not meet with other members of the respondent or others to create or discuss the content of the questionnaire referenced in paragraph 3, above.

 

12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not conduct a “meeting”, within the meaning of § 1-200(2), G.S., on September 15, 2002, September 21, 2002 or September 23, 2002.

 

13.  It is found that the respondent held a properly noticed meeting on August 20, 2002, at which it conducted a teleconference, whereby respondent member Leonard Bell participated by telephone.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2002-409                                                                                               Page 3

 

 

14.  Nothing in the FOI Act precludes conducting a meeting by teleconference, as long as such meeting comports with the open meeting requirements.

 

 

15.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act when it conducted a teleconference call among members of the respondent on August 20, 2002.

 

            16.  During the hearing on this matter, and more clearly set forth in her post-hearing brief, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated other provisions of the FOI Act.

 

            17.  It is found that the additional allegations referenced in paragraph 16, above, even giving the broadest reading to the complainant in this matter, were not raised in such complaint.

 

18.  Since the complainant failed to raise the additional allegations referenced in paragraph 16, above, and the respondent had no notice of such allegations prior to the hearing in this matter, such allegations are not properly before the Commission and will not be addressed herein.

 

19.  At the hearing on this matter the respondent requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the complainant pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S.

 

            20.  In its discretion, the Commission declines to consider the imposition of a civil penalty against the complainant in this case.

 

           

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 27, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 2002-409                                                                                               Page 4

 

 

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:

 

Patricia C. Alves

615 Aspen Lane

Orange, CT  06477

 

Amity Special Review Committee,

Board of Education, Amity Regional

School District No. 5

c/o Richard A. Mills, Jr., Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin LLP

One American Row

Hartford, CT  06103-2819

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-409FD/abg/08/28/2003