FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 27, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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)(A), G.S.

 

2.  By letter dated November 15, 2005 and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“Commission”) on November 21, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by: a) filing an “inaccurate” public notice concerning a meeting of “the Republican Council Members” held on October 3, 2005 (the “gathering”); and b) filing meeting minutes that were “inaccurate and incomplete”. While not set forth with pristine clarity, the gravamen of the complaint is that the gathering that was termed a caucus of Republican members of the Common Council was, in fact, a meeting of the respondent that violated the FOIA. The complaint recites that the Mayor spoke to the gathering and that “a member of the local television media” attended the gathering. The complaint requests that “fines and penalties” be imposed upon the respondent.

 

3.  Section 1-200, G.S., states in relevant parts:

 

(2) “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:… strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining; a caucus of members of a single political party notwithstanding that such members also constitute a quorum of a public agency; … (emphasis added)

 

 (3)  “Caucus” means (A) a convening or assembly of the enrolled members of a single political party who are members of a public agency within the state or a political subdivision,…

 

4.  It is found that an undated notice was filed in the town clerk’s office stating that a “caucus” of the Republican members of the Common Council “will meet” on October 3, 2005 at 7 p.m. 

 

5.  It is also found that the October 3, 2005 gathering included: a) sixteen members of the respondent, all of whom were enrolled as Republicans; b) the Mayor Mark Boughton, for a limited portion of the gathering; and c) Lynn Waller, a member of the public who was affiliated with a local television station.

 

6.  It is further found that the Danbury City Charter designates the Mayor to be the presiding officer at meetings of the respondent. It is also found that Mayor Mark Boughton is an enrolled Republican. 

 

7.  It is found, as the complainant set forth in his complaint, that the Mayor addressed the gathering concerning the subject of negotiations with the police union. He included in his comments on this subject some general references to the personnel file of the complainant, who played a major role representing the police union in the negotiations. He stated that the personnel file of the complainant was about an inch thick and referred to a disciplinary record in the file. In his presentation, the Mayor also mentioned another personnel issue concerning a police officer who returned to duty from an injury. Following his presentation concerning the negotiations with the police union, the Mayor left the gathering.

 

8.  It is found that there was no evidence that Lynn Waller participated in any manner in the general discussion at the October 3, 2005 gathering, or even spoke individually with any member of the caucus while in attendance at the gathering.

 

9.  It is found that the minutes for the gathering refer to it as a “Republican Caucus Meeting” convened at 7 p.m. on October 3, 2005.  

 

10.  Given these findings of fact, the question of law presented by this case is whether, in light of the participation of the Mayor and the attendance of Lynn Waller, the gathering was a “meeting” of a public agency as defined in §1-200(2), G.S., or a “caucus” as defined in §1-200(3), G.S. 

 

11.  It is concluded that the Mayor’s participation at the gathering concerned “strategy…with respect to collective bargaining”, as that term is utilized by §1-200(2), G.S. Therefore, this portion of the gathering did not constitute a “meeting” as defined in the FOIA, regardless of who attended and participated in the discussion at the gathering. See Glastonbury Education Association v. FOIC, 234 Conn. 704 (1995).

 

12.  Based upon the facts found at paragraph 6, above, it is also concluded that the Mayor’s participation at the gathering did not transform the gathering from a “caucus” into a “meeting”, as those terms are utilized by §§1-200(2) and (3), G.S. Desorbo v. East Haven Town Council, Docket #FIC 1992-6. 

 

13.  It is concluded that the mere attendance of Lynn Waller at the gathering, as found at paragraphs 5 and 8, above, without any form of participation, did not transform the gathering from a “caucus” into a “meeting”, as those terms are utilized by §§1-200(2) and (3), G.S. In the Matter of Richard T. O’Brien as Chairman of the Town Council of Prospect, Advisory Opinion #14, May 18, 1976; In the Matter of Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Danbury, Advisory Opinion #57, August 30, 1984.

         

14.   It is therefore concluded that the gathering was a “caucus” pursuant §1-200(3), G.S., not a “meeting” pursuant to §1-200(2), G.S.   

 

 15.  Because no meeting was held as defined by the FOIA, it is finally concluded that the requirements for “meetings” of §1-225, G.S. are not relevant to this case. There was therefore no violation of the notice and minutes requirements of §1-225, G.S., as alleged in the complaint.    

 

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 June 14, 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:

 

Karl Murphy

14 South Meadows

Woodbury, CT 06798

 

Common Council, City of Danbury

c/o Saranne P. Murray, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One Constitution Plaza

Hartford, CT 06103-1919

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-562FD/paj/6/20/2006