FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 26, 2005, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, contested case docket#s FIC 2005-158, Mark Weeks and Sandra Weeks v. Board of Selectmen, Town of Canterbury, and FIC 2005-163, Patricia Williams and Clifford Williams v. Board of Selectmen, Town of Canterbury, were consolidated with the above-captioned case.

           

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 of complaint dated and filed on April 7, 2005, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act on April 5, 2005, by moving the meeting to “closed doors without sufficient reason” thereby, denying them their right to attend such meeting and to observe the presentation concerning the war memorial.

 

3.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on April 5, 2005 (hereinafter “meeting”).

 

4.  It is found that approximately five minutes into the meeting the Second Selectman’s husband Mr. Galasyn, who was videotaping the meeting, pointed the video camera at Mrs. Hart, a member of the public, and Mrs. Hart objected.

 

5.  It is found that a disturbance and altercation then ensued between Mr. Galasyn and Mrs. Hart.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent then cleared the meeting room and continued the meeting in a private conference room.

 

7.  It is found that the respondent permitted some members of the public to attend the conference room session while others, such as the complainants and Mrs. Hart, were excluded.

 

8.  It is found that during the conference room session a presentation was made regarding the war memorial. 

 

9.  The complainants contend that the disturbance did not rise to a level warranting that the meeting be moved behind “closed doors” and away from public view.  They further contend that the respondent’s action of closing off the meeting from public view was premeditated.

 

10.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.

 

11.  Section 1-232, G.S., provides:

 

In the event that any meeting of a public agency is interrupted by any person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by the removal of individuals who are wilfully interrupting the meetings, the members of the agency conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared and continue in session.  Only matters appearing on the agenda may be considered in such a session.  Duly accredited representatives of the press or other news media, except those participating in the disturbance, shall be allowed to attend any session held pursuant to this section.  Nothing in this section shall prohibit such public agency from establishing a procedure for readmitting an individual or individuals not responsible for wilfully disturbing the meeting.

 

12.  Mrs. Hart testified at the hearing in this matter that Mr. Galasyn usually has his video camera focused directly on her during the meetings she attends, and that she has asked him to refrain from doing so.

 

13.  The First Selectman contended at the hearing in this matter that Mrs. Hart has used the worst profanity at meetings, which she did not deny.  It is also found that in the past members of the public have left the meeting room with their families upon hearing such profanity and outbursts.

 

14.  It is found that the First Selectman has asked that the behavior of persons who are disruptive at meetings be videotaped so that such behavior is memorialized.

 

15.  It is also found that the town of Canterbury does not have a police department or a resident trooper and that the First Selectman has had to call for assistance from the state police when disturbances and outbursts have occurred in the past.

 

16.  It is found that, at the meeting in question, the Danielson state police was dispatched to the Canterbury town hall.  However, no arrests were made.    

 

17.  It is found however, that under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent failed to prove that the meeting in question was interrupted by a person or persons so as to render the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible, within the meaning of §1-232, G.S.

 

18.  It is further concluded that the respondent failed to prove that order could not have been restored by the removal of the individual/s who were interrupting the meeting, within the meaning of §1-232, G.S. 

 

19.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the FOI Act by ordering the meeting room cleared, and denying the complainants access to attend the war memorial presentation.

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 §§1-225(a) and 1-232, G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 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:

 

Neil Dupont and Adele Dupont

361 Barstow Road

Canterbury, CT 06331

 

Board of Selectmen, Town of

Canterbury

PO Box 26

One Municipal Drive

Canterbury, CT 06331

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-157FD/paj/3/14/2006