FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

       The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 17, 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, the above captioned matter was consolidated with Docket #s FIC 2003-222; Nancy Beardsley, Grant Lauer, Marilyn Delfino and Barbara Pond v. John Fortunato, Philip Leary, Cynthia Donovan, David Connelly, and Francis Mullins, as members, Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; Frank Nicastro, Sr., Chairman, Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; and Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; FIC 2003-223; Nancy Beardsley, Grant Lauer, Marilyn Delfino and Barbara Pond v. Frank Nicastro, Sr., Chairman, Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; John Fortunato, Philip Leary, Cynthia Donovan, David Connelly, and Francis Mullins, as members, Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; and Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol and FIC 2003-224; Nancy Beardsley, Grant Lauer, and Barbara Pond v. Frank Nicastro, Sr., Chairman, Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; John Fortunato, Philip Leary, Cynthia Donovan, David Connelly, and Francis Mullins, as members, Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; and Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol. 

      Further, prior to the hearing in this matter, the complainants Cynthia Bill and Rich Armington withdrew their complaint in this matter and the caption above has been changed accordingly. 

 

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 June 9, 2003 and filed on June 11, 2003, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to conduct certain business at the respondent committee’s May 6, 2003 special meeting.  The complainants also alleged that the “ . . . last two paragraphs [of the respondent committee’s June 2, 2003 minutes] reflect something that was not said publicly at the meeting.  Vice Chairman Leary moved to reaffirm the Board’s decision that was made on January 15^th.  Commissioner Fortunati seconded the motion.  This was not done at the meeting and as far as we know, was not done in public.” 

 

3.         With respect to the complainants’ allegation described in paragraph 2, above, §1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Notice of each special meeting of every public agency . . . shall be given 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 apolitical subdivision of the state . . . 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.

 

4.      It is found that the respondent committee is a subcommittee of the Board of Parks Commissioners of the city of Bristol.

 

5.      It is found that at its April 16, 2003 meeting, the Board of Parks Commissioners moved to refer a certain skate park project back to the respondent committee to review materials received by the mayor of Bristol regarding the project.  The motion and vote are reflected in the minutes of that meeting.

 

6.      It is found that at the respondent committee’s special meeting of May 6, 2003, a certain letter regarding the skate park project was read out loud and members of the public were permitted to speak on the project in general.

 

7.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainants argued that based on the minutes of the Board of Parks Commissioners’ April 16, 2003 meeting, they thought that the respondent committee should have reviewed materials received by the mayor of Bristol regarding the project and answered questions the public may have had regarding the skate park project. 

 

8.      It is found however that the minutes of the Board of Parks Commissioners’ meeting do not constitute the notice and agenda of the respondent committee’s meetings.  Rather, the agenda for the respondent committee’s May 6, 2003 special meeting was set forth in the notice of that meeting.  Such agenda did not include an item for reviewing materials received by the mayor of Bristol regarding the project or for answering questions the public may have had regarding the skate park project.

 

9.      It is therefore concluded that the respondent committee did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the business it transacted at its May 6, 2003 meeting as alleged by the complainants.

 

10.  With respect to the complainants’ allegation regarding the respondent committee’s June 2, 2003 minutes, it is found that the last two paragraphs of the respondent committee’s May 6, 2003 meeting minutes indicate that a discussion occurred regarding alternate locations of the skate park and a motion and vote in favor of a certain location for the skate park.

 

11.   It is found that the complainants recall that the respondent committee’s May 6, 2003 meeting adjourned without the discussion, motion or vote described in paragraph 10, above, and that the meeting adjourned in a rush because another agency was scheduled to conduct a meeting in the room the respondent committee was using.

 

12.  It is found however that the respondent committee continued its May 6, 2003 meeting in the office of the Board of Parks Commissioners and it was during that portion of the meeting that the discussion, motion and vote described in paragraph 10, above, occurred.

 

13.  It is concluded that the respondent committee violated §1-225(a), G.S., by continuing its May 6, 2003 special meeting without notice to and outside of the purview of the public after such meeting had been adjourned.   

 

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

 

1.      The respondent shall strictly comply with the notice provisions of 1-225(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 14, 2004.

 

 

___________________________________

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:

 

Nancy Beardsley

30 Page Avenue

Bristol, CT  06010

 

Grant Lauer

51 Moody Street

Bristol, CT  06010

 

Barbara Pond

383 Woodland Street

Bristol, CT  06010

 

John Fortunato, Philip Leary, and David Connelly,

as members, Building and Maintenance Committee,

Board of Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol; and

Building and Maintenance Committee, Board of

Parks Commissioners, City of Bristol

c/o Dean B. Kilbourne, Esq.

Bristol Corporation Counsel’s Office

111 North Main Street

Bristol, CT  06010

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-221/FD/abg/04/15/2004