FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 6, 2006, 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 November 2, 2005, and filed with the Commission on November 14, 2005, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to permit them to attend a November 2, 2005 meeting of the respondent.

 

            3.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that: “[t]he meetings of all public agencies…shall be open to the public….”

 

4.  It is found that the Griswold Town Planner informed the First Selectman of Griswold that an informational meeting was scheduled between the town planner and a developer on November 2, 2005.  It is also found that the purpose of such meeting was for the developer to informally describe to the planner his preliminary ideas for development of recently acquired property and to learn from the planner the regulations and procedures of the Town of Griswold that might come into play as the property is developed. 

 

5.  It is found that the First Selectman informed other members of the respondent about said meeting, but did not invite such members to the meeting.  Nevertheless, it is found that, unbeknownst to each other, the members of the respondent decided to attend such meeting, and that, on November 2, 2005, the developer, his engineer, and the town planner met in the town planner’s office, with the three members of the respondent board in attendance.  It is found that the members of the respondent did not engage in any discussions other than cordialities during such meeting and that, specifically, they did not deliberate on the preliminary plans of the developer at the meeting, nor did they vote on such plans or any other matter.  It is also found that, should such development progress, it would need approval of various boards and commissions in Griswold, but not the permission of the respondent. 

 

6.  It is found that the complainants were not permitted to attend the meeting described in paragraphs 4 and  5, above.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent contended that such gathering was not a “meeting” of the respondent within the meaning of the FOI Act.

 

            7.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines “meeting" as:

 

“…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….”

 

8.  It is found that the respondent is a multimember public agency within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.  It is further found that the respondent consists of three members, and that two members constitute a quorum.

 

9.  It is found that the meeting described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, was a convening or assembly of a quorum of the respondent.  Based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case however, it is further found that the subject matter of the meeting was not a matter over which the respondent had supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. 

 

10.  It is concluded that the meeting described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, was not a “meeting” of the respondent, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, 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. 

 

            2.  The Commission notes that, although a violation was not found in the present case, the respondent board of selectmen should recognize that in other circumstances, a gathering of a quorum to discuss matters within the board's control, jurisdiction or advisory power might constitute a meeting under §1-200(2), G.S.  Additionally, the respondent board should be sensitive to the fact that observant citizens, such as the complainants, can draw reasonable inferences that the FOI Act may be violated under similar circumstances.  To prevent future problems, the Commission suggests that the respondent board post notice, and permit the public to attend, all meetings a quorum of the board plans to attend.

 

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

 

Brian Wallheimer and
The Norwich Bulletin

66 Franklin Street

Norwich, CT 06360

 

Board of Selectmen,

Town of Griswold

c/o Michael A. Zizka, Esq.

Murtha Cullina LLP

CityPlace I – 185 Asylum Street

Hartford, CT 06103-3469

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-546FD/paj/11/9/2006