FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final
Decision
Paul Wallace and Connecticut
Council 4, AFSCME,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-95
James Crispino, Richard
Freeman, James Geraghty, Edwin Gomes, Edward McLaughlin, Lisa Parziale, Peter
Spinelli, Michael Creedon, John Driscoll and Mayor's Task Force Committee on
the Dinan Memorial Center of the City of Bridgeport,
Respondents September
23, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 11, 1987, at which time the complainants 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:
1. The respondent
committee is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of
complaint filed with the Commission on April 1, 1987, the complainants alleged
that the respondents failed to give proper notice for a meeting held on
February 27, 1987, and requested the Commission declare the activities of the
respondent committee null and void and impose a civil penalty.
3. The parties
agreed to include additional claims made by the complainants that the
respondents failed to properly notice additional meetings which it held during
March 1987 and failed to file minutes.
4.
The
respondents are a committee of prominent citizens appointed by the mayor to
oversee a nursing home owned by the city, known as Dinan Memorial Center, which
is financially troubled.
Docket No. FIC 87-95 page 2
5. On February
27, 1987, an operational review of the Dinan Memorial Center was presented to
the respondent committee by the certified public accountants Lowenthal and
Horvath.
6. On the same
day, a notice that the respondents would meet every Friday morning at 9:30 a.m.
in the mayor's conference room was filed with the town clerk.
7. A similar
notice was published in the local newspaper during March 1987.
8. Neither the
notice in the clerk's office nor the newspaper notice stated the purpose of the
meetings.
9. It is found
that, up through March 29, 1987, the meetings of the respondent committee were
special rather than regular meetings and, therefore, the notice filed with the
clerk was defective because it should have stated the purpose for the meetings.
10. It is
found that no minutes were filed for the February 27, 1987, meeting and that
minutes for the March 6 and March 20, 1987, meetings were filed late.
11. The reason
that the minutes for the February 27, 1987 meeting were not created was that
since the meeting was the occasion for the presentation of the Lowenthal &
Horvath report, it was believed that the report spoke for itself.
12. The
respondents are giving notice for their meetings and filing minutes, since they
have become aware of the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
13. It is found
that neither a civil penalty nor an order declaring actions taken null and void
is appropriate under these circumstances.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents shall create minutes for the February 27, 1987, meeting stating the
names of those present and describing briefly the substance of the meeting.
2. The
respondents shall henceforth comply with the notice and minutes requirements of
§1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of September 23, 1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission