FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

        

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 2, 2008, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the hearing in this matter, the Connecticut State University-American Association of University Professors, moved to intervene as a party.  Such motion was granted without objection. 

 

            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 5, 2007, and filed with the Commission on November 6, 2007, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information  [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying them admittance to a November 5, 2007, meeting of the respondent. 

 

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

 

4.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines “meeting” to mean:

 

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…. 

 

5.      It is found that, at an October 22, 2007, meeting of the respondent

Senate, a senator moved to conduct a referendum as to whether to express no confidence in the president of the university.  It is found that, after much discussion and debate, the respondent senate decided that the faculty as a whole should be given an opportunity to express their opinions on the issue of whether to conduct a no confidence referendum.  

 

6.  It is found that the president of the respondent senate alerted faculty members

of a November 5, 2007, “town hall meeting” at which faculty members could voice their views as to whether to conduct the referendum described in paragraph 5, above.

 

7.      It is found that the complainants attempted to attend the November 5, 2007,

gathering described in paragraph 6, above, but a member of the faculty refused them admittance.

 

8.      It is found that, at the November 5, 2007, gathering, almost two hundred

faculty members were in attendance, including some members of the respondent senate.  It is found that, at such gathering, faculty members were afforded an opportunity to voice their opinions as to whether to conduct the referendum.  It is further found that: such gathering lasted approximately one and one half hours; no votes were taken; and no decisions were made.

 

9.      It is found that, sometime after the November 5, 2007, gathering, ballots

were distributed to faculty members on the issue of the referendum, and that the result of the balloting was announced at a November 26, 2007, meeting of the respondent senate. 

 

10.    Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the

November 5, 2007, gathering was not a meeting of the respondent senate, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.  Rather, it is found that the November 5, 2007, gathering was a meeting of the faculty as a whole.

 

            11.  Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is 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.

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 25, 2008.

 

 

 

________________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Justin Kloczko, Conrad Akier,

Mark Rowan and The Recorder

1615 Stanley Street

New Britain, CT 06052

           

Faculty Senate, State of Connecticut,

Central Connecticut State University

c/o Holly Jean Bray, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Connecticut State University System

39 Woodland Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

Connecticut State University-American

Association of University Professors,

c/o Henry F. Murray, Esq. and

Gregg D. Adler, Esq.

Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn

& Kelly PC

557 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-606FD/sw/6/26/2008