FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 6, 2005, 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, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with contested case Docket #FIC 2005-330, David LeBlanc v. Rob Kane, Chairman, Town Council, Town of Watertown; Town Council, Town of Watertown; and Meredith Robson, Town Manager, Town of Watertown.

 

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1.      It is found that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated and filed on June 13, 2005, the complainant appealed to this commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by discussing and voting on an item of business that was not on the agenda for the respondent’s May 16, 2005 regular meeting.  The complainant further alleged that because the agenda did not include the name of individual(s) under consideration for appointment to certain boards or commissions, nor the name of the board or commission to which the appointment would be made, the respondent’s May 16, 2005 agenda failed to fairly and sufficiently apprise the public of the business to be transacted at the meeting so that he could adequately prepare for the meeting and voice his opposition or approval of the individuals.

 

3.      Section 1-225(c), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

The agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency . . . shall be available to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer, in such agency's regular office or place of business . . . Upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of a public agency present and voting, any subsequent business not included in such filed agendas may be considered and acted upon at such meetings.

 

4.      In contested case Docket #FIC 1990-048 Trenton E. Wright, Jr. v. First Selectman, Town of Windham, the Commission found that the phrase "executive session - personnel matters" was too vague to communicate to the public the business to be transacted.

 

5.       In Durham Middlefield Interlocal Agreement Advisory Board v. FOIC et al., Superior Court, Docket No. CV 96 0080435, Judicial District of Middletown, Memorandum of Decision dated August 12, 1997 (McWeeny, J.), the court concluded that it was reasonable for the Commission to require something more detailed than office “Executive Session Re: Possible Litigation” in a special meeting notice.

 

6.      In Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Plainfield, et al. v. FOIC et al., Superior Court, Docket No. CV 99-0497917-S, Judicial District of New Britain, Memorandum of Decision dated May 3, 2000 (Satter, J.), reversed on other grounds, 66 Conn. App. 279 (2001), the court observed that one purpose of a meeting agenda “is that the public and interested parties be apprised of matters to be taken up at the meeting in order to properly prepare and be present to express their views,” and that “[a] notice is proper only if it fairly and sufficiently apprises the public of the action proposed, making possible intelligent preparation for participation in the hearing.”

 

7.      It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on May 16, 2005. It is found that the agenda for such meeting in relevant part:

 

“8. Action Items:

a. Consider Appointments to Board and Commissions.”

 

8.      It is found that the item of business described in paragraph 7, above, is a standard item of business that is always listed on the respondent’s agenda.

 

9.       It is found that at the respondent’s April 2005 regular meeting, it took up the item of business described in paragraph 7, above, to appoint a Mr. Mark Tedesco to the Planning and Zoning Commission.  It is found that after some discussion regarding the appointment, the item was tabled.  It is found that the complainant attended the April, 2005 regular meeting.

 

10.   It is found that at the respondent’s May 16, 2005 regular meeting, three members of the public, which included the complainant, were permitted to address the respondent regarding Mr. Tedesco’s appointment described in paragraph 9, above.  It is found that this occurred under the item “public participation” which was taken up by the respondent before it took up the item of business described in paragraph 7, above.

 

11.  It is found that under the item described in paragraph 7, above, the respondent discussed and voted to appoint Mr. Tedesco to the Planning and Zoning Commission by a 5 to 4 vote.

 

12.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant argued that the discussion and vote regarding Mr. Tedesco’s appointment was not on the agenda and because the respondent did not vote to add such to the agenda, it violated §1-225(c), G.S., by conducting business that was not on the agenda of the May 16, 2005 regular meeting.  The complainant also argued that without the name of the nominee and the board or commission to which the nominee was nominated, the agenda did not fairly and sufficiently apprise the public of the business to be transacted at the meeting, and he could not adequately prepare his remarks for or against the nominee.

 

13.   It is found that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the agenda item as described in paragraph 7, above, fairly apprised the public of the business to be transacted.

 

14.  It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not conduct business that was not on its May 16, 2005 regular meeting agenda.

 

15.   It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

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 February 8, 2006.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

David LeBlanc

223 Middlebury Road

Watertown, CT 06795

 

Town Council, Town of Watertown

c/o Paul R. Jessell, Esq.

Slavin, Stauffacher & Scott LLC

680 Main Street

PO Box 9

Watertown, CT 06795

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-280FD/paj/2/9/2006