FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Marvin P. Zimmerman and Jon Grossman, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2003-133 | |
|
Chairman, Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Branford; and Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Branford, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September 10, 2003 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 24, 2003, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 2003-153, Stacy S. Ruwe against Joe Chandler, Chairman, Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Branford; Peter Banca, Erica Campbell, Chris Peterson and Michael Milici, as members, Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Branford; and Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Branford (hereinafter Docket #FIC 2003-153).
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. By letter dated April 7, 2003 and filed April 9, 2003, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that at the respondent board’s March 23, 2003 meeting, the respondent chairman directed members of the public to leave the room, while the respondents deliberated on property assessment appeals, in violation of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.
3. At the hearing on this matter, the complainants indicated that they had misstated the date of the respondent board’s meeting in their letter of complaint and that the reference to March 23, 2003, should have been to March 24, 2003. The complainants also clarified that the respondent chairman did not direct people to leave the room; rather, the respondents left the room and conducted their meeting in a separate, private room.
4. It is found that the Town of Branford hired a private company to conduct a property revaluation for the town and that the company completed its property assessments in the Fall of 2002. It is also found that property owners who wished to have their assessment reviewed by the respondent board filed appeal applications with the board and then had an opportunity to meet with an individual member of the respondent board. Thereafter, the member of the respondent board who met with the property owner was responsible for presenting his or her version of the appeal to the respondent board as a whole for its consideration.
5. It is found that the respondents held a meeting on March 24, 2003, for the purpose of reviewing and voting on all appeal applications for “2002 Grand Lists of Real Estate, Personal Property and the 2001 Supplemental Motor Vehicle”. The respondents recessed the March 24, 2003 meeting late in the evening, to March 25, 2003 and then again to March 26, 2003 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the March meetings”), in order to complete the respondents’ business, which they were required by statute to conclude by the end of March.
6. It is found that at the commencement of the March 24, 2003 meeting, the respondents convened an executive session. The meeting minutes state the purpose of the executive session as follows: “to discuss properties with possible litigation.” On each of the evenings that the respondent board met, it convened in public session, moved into executive session, reconvened in public session following the executive session, and then voted on various appeals without any discussion.
7. It is found that in advance of the March meetings, Stacy Ruwe, the complainant in Docket #FIC 2003-153, had arranged to have the proceedings of the March meetings videotaped.
8. It is found that the complainants in this case and Ms. Ruwe in Docket #FIC 2003-153, had each filed appeal applications with the respondent board, that were considered and voted on at the March meetings. It is also found that although neither the complainants in this case nor Ms. Ruwe attended the March meetings of the respondent board, they had anticipated that they would be able to review the videotapes of the proceedings and deliberations of the respondent board, prior to making a determination as to whether they would appeal the respondent board’s decisions, if adverse to them, to Superior Court. However, they were not able to do so due to the fact that the deliberations were conducted in executive session and no videotapes were therefore made of the deliberations.
9. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “the meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”
10. Section 1-200(6)(B), G.S., permits a public agency to convene in executive session for:
strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because of the member’s conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.
11. Section 1-200(8), G.S., defines a pending claim as:
a written notice to an agency which sets forth a demand for legal relief or which asserts a legal right stating the intention to institute an action in an appropriate forum if such relief or right is not granted.
12. Section 1-200(9), G.S., defines pending litigation as: