FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 16, 2003, 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.      By letter dated March 20, 2003 and filed on March 25, 2003, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act as follows:

 

a.       the respondent first selectman issued a memorandum to employees of the town of Brookfield in contravention of the FOI Act;

 

b.      the respondent controller failed to comply with the complainant’s February 28, and March 4 and 11, 2003 records requests;

 

c.       the respondent board lists “executive session” on its meeting agendas without identifying the subject matter to be discussed during such session on those agendas;

 

d.      the respondent board failed to file the minutes of its March 3, 2003 meeting with the town clerk within the statutory time period; and

 

e.       the respondent first selectman denied the complainant access to attend certain monthly department head meetings.

 

3.      With respect to the complainant’s allegations described in paragraph 2a and b, above, §1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void. 

 

4.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

5.         It is found that on February 20, 2003, the respondent first selectman issued a directive to employees of certain town agencies requiring all FOI requests to be made and processed through the office of the town clerk.

 

6.         It is found that the purpose of the directive, described in paragraph 5, above, is to ensure that requesters make requests only to town offices that have a counter, which counter serves as a barrier between the requester and town employees.  The respondent first selectman issued the directive out of a concern for his employees due to past behavior of the complainant, who, according to the respondents, was extremely aggressive, rude, and belligerent, if his records request was not complied with immediately.  The directive was limited to town agencies located in the town hall that do not have counters.

 

7.         It is found that on or about February 28, 2003, the complainant made a request to the respondent controller for certain legal bills and was informed that, pursuant to the first selectman’s directive, all FOI requests must be made at the town clerk’s office.

 

8.         It is found that once the complainant submitted his request for a copy of the legal bills to the town clerk, the records were provided to him, although the complainant could not indicate when that occurred.

 

9.      It is found that the complainant made additional requests on March 4 and 11, 2003, to the respondent controller for copies of certain invoices and was informed on each occasion that all FOI requests must be made through the town clerk’s office.

 

10.  It is found that the complainant submitted his request for the invoices to the town clerk on March 11, 2003 and received copies of the requested records on March 17, 2003.

 

11.  It is found that while the complainant argued that there was an extreme delay between the time he submitted his requests to the town clerk and the time he received the requested records, there is no evidence in the record in this case to support a finding that there was any delay.

 

12.  Consequently, it is concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, the controller did not violate the “promptness” provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by requiring the complainant to follow the town policy and make his requests for records through the town clerk.  

 

13.  It is also found that there is insufficient evidence in this case that the first selectman’s policy diminishes or curtails the rights granted by §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.; and it is concluded, therefore, that under the facts and circumstances of this case that the respondent first selectman’s policy does not violate the provisions thereof.

 

14.  With respect to the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 2c, above, it is found that, anticipating that one or more of the items listed on the respondent board’s March 3, 2003 meeting agenda might require discussion in executive session, the respondent board listed “executive session” on that agenda without stating any specific purpose for such a session. 

 

15.  It is found that nothing in the FOI Act requires an agency to state the purpose of an executive session on its agenda, although doing so would provide better guidance to the public as to the intended conduct of the meeting.  Furthermore, the respondent board did not enter into executive session during its March 3, 2003 meeting. 

 

16.  It is concluded that the respondent board did not violate the FOI Act by failing to state the purpose of the executive session on its March 3, 2003 meeting agenda.  

 

17.  With respect to the complainant’s allegation found in paragraph 2d, above, it is found that pursuant to town policy all boards and committees must file a copy of the minutes of their meeting with the town clerk.

 

18.   However, §1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Each [public] agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located . . . Each such agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meeting minutes.

 

 

19.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that the minutes of an agency’s meeting “shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.”

 

20.  It is found that the office of the respondent board is the office of the first selectman and that all meeting minutes of the respondent board are maintained in the selectmen’s conference room located on the second floor of the town hall.  The selectmen’s conference room is open to the public for the purpose of obtaining access to inspect those minutes.

 

21.  It is found that a draft of the minutes of the respondent board’s March 3, 2003 meeting was available for public inspection within seven days of that meeting, as required by §1-225(a), G.S.

 

22.  It is found that nothing in the FOI Act requires the respondent board to file its meeting minutes with the town clerk and insofar as the town’s policy requires all boards and committees to file meeting minutes with the town clerk, this Commission has no jurisdiction to enforce such policy. 

 

23.  It is concluded that the respondent board did not violate §1-225(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainant in paragraph 2d, above.

 

24.  With respect to the complainant’s allegation found in paragraph 2e, above, §1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies . . . shall be open to the public.”

 

25.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that “ ‘[m]eeting’ does not include . . . an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency.”

 

26.  It is found that the respondent first selectman is a single member public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

27.  It is found that the respondent first selectman convenes department head meetings in his capacity as chief administrator of the town of Brookfield on a monthly basis and are attended solely by members of his staff and administration. 

 

28.  It is found that such meetings constitute administrative or staff meetings within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

29.  It is found therefore that the department head meetings do not constitute “meetings” within the meaning of §1-225(a), G.S., and it is concluded that the respondent first selectman did not violate §1-225(a), G.S., by denying the complainant access to attend such meetings. 

 

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 November 12, 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:

 

Richard Amorossi

45 Merwin Brook Road

Brookfield, CT  06804

 

First Selectman, Town of Brookfield;

Board of Selectmen, Town of Brookfield;

and Controller, Town of Brookfield

c/o Edward P. McCreery III, Esq.

Pullman & Comley, LLC

850 Main Street, PO Box 7006

Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-112/FD/abg/11/13/2003