FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 13, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that the respondent board oversees the operations of the housing development wherein the complainant resides.

 

3.      It is found that an issue within the development had been brought to the attention of the respondent board beginning in the fall of 2005 by the complainant, which issue was affecting the complainant and a number of other residents. 

 

4.      It is found that the respondents have heard from the complainant in various forms and on countless occasions regarding the issue referenced in paragraph 3, above. 

 

5.      It is found that at the respondent board’s March 22, 2006 regular meeting, another resident in attendance proposed a solution to the issue for the benefit of the complainant.  At that time, the complainant, without permission from the respondent board to do so, stood and spoke, at length, regarding  the proposed solution.

 

6.      It is found that during the complainant’s comments, described in paragraph 5, above, the secretary of the respondent board asked the complainant a question and that during the complainant’s response to the secretary’s question, respondent Wieder interjected and implied that he wanted the complainant to leave the meeting.

 

7.      It is found that the complainant inquired whether respondent Wieder was telling her to leave and that when he informed her that he was, the complainant left the meeting.

 

8.      By letter dated and filed on March 23, 2006, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by dismissing her from the respondent board’s March 22, 2006 regular meeting.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

 

9.      Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[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 . . . .”  

 

10.   Section 1-232, G.S., provides that:

 

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 . . .  . 

 

11.  It is found that respondent Wieder told the complainant to leave and that by doing so he effectively “removed” the complainant from the meeting.

 

12.  It is found that the general consensus of the respondent board’s members during the March 22, 2006 regular meeting was that they had heard more than enough from the complainant on the issue and that they were weary of her lectures.

 

13.   It is found that although the complainant was not officially given permission to speak by the respondent board, the respondents failed to prove that her address rendered the orderly conduct of the respondent board’s March 22, 2006 regular meeting “unfeasible” within the meaning of §1-232, G.S., so as to warrant her removal from the meeting.

 

14.   It is further found that the respondents could have simply asked the complainant to refrain from speaking and to sit down but they did not do so.

 

15.   It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §1-225(a), G.S., by removing the complainant from their March 22, 2006 regular meeting.

 

16.   At the hearing on this matter the complainant explained that it was not her intention to request a civil penalty against Mr. Wieder, but rather against the entire respondent board.  Therefore, she withdrew her request for a civil penalty against Mr. Wieder.

 

17.   After consideration of the entire record in this case, the Commission declines to consider the imposition of civil penalties against the respondent board or any of its members.

  

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

 

1.      Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 9, 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:

 

Araxy Najarian

First Church Village

117 Wells Road, A-72

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

Bill Wieder, Member, Board of Directors,

First Church Housing, Inc.

117 Wells Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

Board of Directors,

First Church Housing, Inc.

117 Wells Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

 

__________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-133FD/paj/8/16/2006