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 2002-409, Patricia C. Alves against Amity Special Review Committee, Board of Education, Amity Regional School District #5.

           

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.  In a letter dated and filed with the Commission on January 6, 2003, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had violated the FOI Act by:

 

a.  failing to inform the complainant why part of an October 18, 2002, meeting of the respondent would be conducted in executive session, and

 

b.  failing to permit the complainant access to the results of a questionnaire distributed by the respondent.

          

            3.  In a letter dated and filed with the Commission on February 26, 2003, the complainant amended his complaint to additionally allege that the respondent violated the FOI Act by:

 

Docket #FIC 2003-003                                                                       Page 2

 

 

a.  improperly conducting an executive session on January 13, 2003, and ordering a non-member of the respondent to leave the room in which an executive session was being held;

 

b.  improperly meeting on February 7, 2003, a date on which school had been canceled due to inclement weather; and

 

c.  holding an unnoticed meeting on February 11, 2003, regarding certain respondent findings and distribution of information, which had been compiled by the respondent during an investigation.

 

The complainant also sought to add the Board of Education, Amity Regional School District, No. 5, as a party respondent.

 

            4.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant’s motion to add the Board of Education, Amity Regional School District, No. 5 as a party respondent was denied because there was no allegation that the entire Board of Education violated the FOI Act.

 

            5.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent’s motion to dismiss portions of the complainant’s appeal was denied.

 

6.  The respondent’s motion to strike the complainant’s post-hearing brief is hereby denied.

 

7.  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.

 

8.  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.” 

 

            9.  Section 1-225(f), G.S., provides: “A public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting, taken at a public meeting and

 

 

Docket #FIC 2003-003                                                                                   Page 3

 

 

stating the reasons for such executive session, as defined in section 1-200.”

 

 

10.  Section 1-231(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[a]t an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall be limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body provided that such persons' attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion and, provided further, that the minutes of such executive session shall disclose all persons who are in attendance except job applicants who attend for the purpose of being interviewed by such agency.

 

            11.  With respect to the complainant's allegation in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on October 10, 2002, not on October 18, 2002, as alleged by the complainant.

 

12.  It is found that during the respondent’s regular meeting on October 10, 2002, the respondent moved to go into executive session, but did not actually convene an executive session because a non-member of the respondent refused to leave the room in which the executive session was scheduled to be held.  The respondent, therefore, adjourned the meeting.

 

13.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the meeting on October 10, 2002, as alleged by the complainant.

 

14.  At the hearing on this matter, the parties stipulated that the respondent would release the questionnaire responses to the complainant in order to resolve that aspect of his complaint raised in paragraph 2b, above.

 

            15.  With respect to the allegation in paragraph 3a, above, it is found that the complainant failed to put forth any evidence to prove this allegation.

 

            16.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the meeting on January 13, 2003, as alleged by the complainant in paragraph 3a, above.

 

17.  With respect to the allegations in paragraphs 3b and c, above, it is found that the respondent held properly noticed meetings on February 7 and 11, 2003.

 

Docket #FIC 2003-003                                                                                   Page 4

 

 

18.  It is also found that the respondent took no action to cancel the meeting of February 7, 2003, and the respondent took no action to prevent the public from attending.

 

            19.  With respect to the complainant’s allegations in paragraphs 3b and c, above, it is concluded that no violation of the FOI Act occurred with respect to the meetings of February 7 and 11, 2003.

 

            20.  With respect to the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 3b, above, it is concluded that the complainant has failed to allege a violation of

any provision of the FOI Act.  Consequently, this Commission lacks jurisdiction over such allegation.

 

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

 

22.  It is found that the additional allegations referenced in paragraph 21, above, even giving the broadest reading to the complaint in this matter, were not raised in such complaint.

 

23.  Since the complainant failed to raise the additional allegations referenced in paragraph 21, 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.

 

24.  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.

 

25.  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 2003-003                                                                                   Page 5

 

 

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:

 

Steven A. Ledewitz

57 Oak Ridge Drive

Bethany, CT  06524

 

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/2003-003FD/abg/08/28/2003