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 Docket #FIC 2005-280, David LeBlanc v. Town Council, 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated June 30, 2005 and filed on July 1, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying the public access to attend a meeting, and failing to file an agenda and minutes of that meeting.  The complainant requested that the actions taken at such meeting be declared null and void, that civil penalties be imposed against the named respondents and that they be ordered to attend an FOI Act workshop.

 

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

 

(a)    . . . [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 . . . [and] minutes [of the meeting of a public agency] shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer . . . ;

and

 

 

(c)  [t]he 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 . . . ;

 

4.      At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that the negotiations held during the private meeting after the respondent town council’s June 20, 2005 regular meeting constitute “strategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.  The respondents argued that the language in §1-200(2), G.S., should be read broadly to encompass the negotiations at issue in this complaint because “the policy factors underlying the exemption from the public meeting requirements of the FOI Act for certified labor unions are no less important for a group of non-union employees, such as the town department heads, who decide to act collectively in negotiating their salaries and benefits.”  The respondent further argued that while all of this Commission’s decisions regarding the application of the relevant language of §1-200(2), G.S., involved certified labor unions, nothing in the FOI Act requires that it be read to limit its application to such unions. 

 

5.      Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that “ ‘[m]eeting’ does not include . . .  strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining . . . .”

 

6.      It is found that the respondent town council held a regular meeting on June 20, 2005.

 

7.      It is found that after such meeting, the respondent town council met privately with the respondent town manager and six town department heads and discussed the salary and benefit terms for all town department heads.

 

8.      It is found that the town department heads are non-union employees and have no contract over which to negotiate.

 

9.      It is concluded that, while it was the intention of the town department heads to function as a collective unit, the private meeting described in paragraph 7, above, did not constitute “strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

10.  It is found that the private meeting described in paragraph 7, above, constituted a convening of the respondent town council to discuss a matter over which it has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

 

11.  It is concluded therefore that the private meeting described in paragraph 7, above, constituted a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

12.  It is found that the respondent town council denied the public access to attend a meeting, and failed to file an agenda and minutes of that meeting.

 

13.  It is concluded that the respondent town council violated the open meeting provisions of §1-225, G.S.

 

14.  Notwithstanding the forgoing findings and conclusions, the complainant’s requests for relief as described in paragraph 2, above, are denied.

 

 

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

 

1.      The respondent town council shall generate minutes of the meeting described in paragraph 7 of the findings, above, which minutes, at the minimum, shall record the time, date and place of the meeting, the members of the respondent town council that attended the meeting, the subject of the discussion, any motions that were made and any votes taken.  A copy of such minutes shall be provided to the complainant, free of charge, within 7 days of the notice of the final decision in the case.

 

2.      Henceforth the respondent chairman and the respondent town council shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225(a), G.S.

 

3.      The complaint is hereby dismissed against the respondent town manager.

 

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

 

Rob Kane, Chairman, Town Council,

Town of Watertown; Town Council,

Town of Watertown; and Meredith

Robson, Town  Manager, 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/2005-330FD/paj/2/9/2006