FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 29, 2006, at which time the complainant 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.  It is found that the Board of Education, Stratford Public Schools [hereinafter “the board”] , authorized the creation of the respondent committee during an open meeting on September 26, 2005, and that the purpose of such committee was to assess

and analyze overcrowding at Bunnell High School and to recommend solutions to the board by February 2006.  It is further found that the Superintendent of Schools, Stratford Public Schools [hereinafter “the superintendent”], thereafter appointed fourteen members to such committee, including herself and members of her staff, as well as any community members who volunteered for service.  It is concluded that the respondent committee was a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., during its existence.

 

2.  It is found that the respondent committee conducted meetings on November 9, 2005, November 16, 2005, November 30, 2005, December 21, 2005, and January 11, 2006.  It is further found that, consistent with prior practice of ad hoc committees in Stratford, the respondent did not post notice of such meetings.

 

3.  It is found that, during a January 18, 2006 meeting of the board, the respondent committee presented its recommendations to alleviate overcrowding at the high school.   It is found that, at such point, the respondent committee disbanded.

 

4.  By letter dated January 19, 2006, and filed with the Commission on January 23, 2006, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to post notices of the meetings described in paragraph 2, above, or to promptly prepare minutes for such meetings.  As a remedy, the complainant asks that the Commission declare null and void all actions taken by the respondent at its unnoticed meetings and to provide access to all materials considered by the respondent at such meetings. 

 

5.  Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“[a]ny person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held….”

 

6.  It is found that the complainant first had notice in fact of the meetings described in paragraph 2, above, on January 18, 2006, and that the complaint in this matter was filed within thirty days of such date.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the Commission has jurisdiction over this complaint.

 

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

 

“[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.  The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, which minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.”

 

            8.  Section 1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“[n]otice of each special meeting of every public agency…shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the office of the…clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state.…”  

 

9.  It is found that, upon receiving the recommendations of the respondent on January 18, 2006, the board scheduled and held a special meeting on January 23, 2006, at which it received public comment on such recommendations.

 

10.  It is found that, shortly thereafter, the superintendent became aware of the complaint in this matter, consulted the town attorney, and determined that the respondent committee was indeed a public agency, and that notices should have been prepared for the meetings of the respondent, as alleged in the complaint.

 

11.  It is found that the superintendent, on behalf of the disbanded respondent, then took steps to remedy the situation.  Specifically, at a February 7, 2006, meeting of the parent teacher association, it is found that the superintendent offered the presentation of the respondent which had previously been presented to the board on January 18, 2006.   It is further found that the superintendent acknowledged to such association that the meetings of the respondent should have been publicly noticed, and invited public comment and participation with respect to overcrowding recommendations, at the February 9, 2006, meeting of the board.  

 

12.  It is also found that, at a special meeting of the board on February 9, 2006, the superintendent again openly acknowledged the FOI violations of the respondent, apologized for such violations, and invited anyone who wished to comment on overcrowding solutions, and/or the respondent’s recommendations, to do so.  It is also found that the superintendent made available to the public any and all papers and materials, which the respondent had reviewed in making its recommendations.

 

13.  It is found that the board again accepted public comment on the overcrowding issue at its regular meeting of February 27, 2006. 

 

14.  It is found that the now disbanded respondent was advisory in nature, and had no authority to determine the outcome of the overcrowding issue.  It is further found that the board voted on the respondent’s recommendations at its February 27, 2006, meeting, accepting some such recommendations, and rejecting others.

 

15.  It is found that, at the time of the hearing in this matter, the complainant had received copies of the minutes of the meetings described in paragraph 2, above.

           

            16.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent stipulated that it violated §1-225, G.S., by failing to file notices of the meetings described in paragraph 2, above, with the Stratford Town clerk, and by failing to promptly provide the public with minutes of such meetings.  The respondent then apologized for such violations and informed the Commission that all other ad hoc committees in Stratford are now aware of their obligations under the FOI Act.  While ignorance of the law does not excuse the respondent’s violations, the Commission notes that the respondent was sincere in its erroneous belief that it was not subject to the FOI Act. 

 

17.  It is concluded that the respondent violated §1-225, G.S., as alleged in the complaint.    

 

18.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent should be ordered to reconvene its meetings, and to begin the process anew, allowing the public more input into formulation of recommendations.  However, it is concluded that such a remedy would amount to form over substance, since the FOI Act does not mandate that a public agency such as the respondent hear public comment.  Moreover, in this instance, it is found that the public was given ample opportunity to comment directly to the decision-maker, the board, prior to the board’s vote.     

 

Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, no order by the Commission is hereby recommended.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 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:

 

John Rahrig

108 Phillips Street

Stratford, CT 06614-5135

 

Bunnell Over-Crowding

Committee, Board of Education,

Stratford Public Schools

c/o Warren L. Holcomb, Esq.

75 Broad Street

Milford, CT 06460

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-028FD/paj/12/19/2006