FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Fred Musante and The Stratford Star, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2005-314 | ||
| Town Council, Town of Stratford, | |||
| Respondent | February 22, 2006 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 20, 2005, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated June 29, 2005 and filed on June 30, 2005, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by allowing individuals, who were not members of the respondent, to attend the respondent’s May 31, 2005 Republican caucus.
3. It is found that on or about April 26, 2005, the respondent began its budget development process for its 2005-2006 fiscal year which process began with a public hearing on April 26, 2005 and the appointment of a special budget committee.
4. It is found that the respondent’s special budget committee met between April 30 and May 24, 2005, to develop a proposed budget that it would submit to the respondent.
5. It is found that the respondent held a meeting on May 26, 2005, and discussed the proposed budget.
6. It is found that the respondent recessed during its May 26, 2005 meeting to permit its members to convene in caucus to address and resolve concerns regarding the proposed budget within their own political party in an effort to foster a consensus among most, if not all, of the members of the respondent regarding the proposed budget.
7. It is found, however, that even after the caucus discussions, the members of the respondent did not reach an agreement with respect to the budget and the respondent adjourned the May 26, 2005 meeting.
8. It is found that the respondent met again on May 31, 2005, to discuss the proposed budget and immediately after the meeting was called to order, the respondent called a recess.
9. It is found that during that recess of the May 31, 2005 meeting, the Republican members of the respondent gathered in a certain room numbered 217 (hereinafter “room 217”).
10. It is found that during that recess of the May 31, 2005 meeting, the Democratic members of the respondent meet in caucus in a certain room numbered 208 (hereinafter “room 208”).
11. It is found that while the Republican members of the respondent were gathered in room 217, the town attorney and the two assistant town attorneys, at different times, entered the room.
12. It is found that at least one of the attorneys held a discussion with at least one of the Republican members of the respondent who requested legal advice on the course of action the respondent could take if the respondent was not able to reach a consensus regarding the budget.
13. It is found that a Mrs. Laura Hoydick, a member of the Stratford Board of Education and not a member of the respondent, also entered room 217 and spoke to one of the Republican members of the respondent about the budget.
14. The respondent argued that the gathering was not a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., because there is no evidence that an organized discussion of agency business took place and there is no evidence that a quorum of the respondent was present during the time period in question.
15. Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
“Meeting” means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. “Meeting” does not include . . . a caucus of members of a single political party notwithstanding that such members also constitute a quorum of a public agency . . . .
16. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive session as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”
17. It is found that the Republican members of the respondent discussed the budget and the issues surrounding its passage with individuals who were not members of the respondent in room 217. Consequently, the discussion did not meet the criteria of a “caucus” within the meaning of 1-200(2), G.S.
18. It is found that the discussion in room 217, described in paragraphs 12, 13, and 17, above, constituted a proceeding of the respondent, during which members of the respondent discussed a matter over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.
19. It is also found that the discussion in room 217, as described in paragraphs 12, 13 and 17, above, does not fall within any of the exclusions permitted by §1-200(2), G.S. Consequently, such discussion should have taken place during the respondent’s open meeting.
20. It is further found that while a convening or assembly of a quorum is demonstrative that a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. was held, it is not determinative. See Emergency Medical Services Commission of the Town of East Hartford, V. FOIC, 19 Conn. App. 352 (1989).
21. Furthermore, it is found that the respondent failed to prove that there was not a convening or assembly of a quorum of the respondent during the discussion in room 217.
22. In light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S., by failing to conduct in public, the discussion it conducted in room 217, described in paragraphs 12, 13, and 17, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the open meetings provisions of §1-225(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 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:
Fred Musante and The Stratford Star
1000 Bridgeport Avenue
Shelton, CT 06484
Town Council, Town of Stratford
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2005-314FD/paj/2/27/2006