FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Ben Klatzko,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-281

 

North Branford Bus Safety Committee,

 

                        Respondent                  March 9, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 6, 1994, 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.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         By letter of complaint filed October 12, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the minutes of the respondent's September 13, 1993 meeting were inaccurate.

 

            3.         In particular, the complainant alleged that the minutes of the respondent's September 13, 1993 meeting failed to reflect a consensus reached by the respondent to appoint him as a member of the respondent.

 

            4.         It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on September 13, 1993.

 

            5.         It is also found that the respondent did not file a notice of its special meeting with the North Branford town clerk.

 

            6.         The respondent concedes that its failure to file a notice of its September 13, 1993 special meeting, as well as of previous meetings, was a violation of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            7.         The respondent also indicated at the hearing that its failure to file notices of its meetings was due to the respondent's chairman's lack of awareness of his responsibility to do so and, having been so informed, that he has and will file notices of all subsequent special meetings while he is chairman.

 

Docket #FIC 93-281                           Page 2

 

            8.         It is found that at the end of the respondent's September 13, 1993 meeting, one of its members, under the agenda item "Other Items for Discussion," sought to have the respondent committee enlarged to include another parent member.

 

            9.         It is found that there was generally support for the addition of another parent member.

 

            10.       It is also found that the chairman of the respondent recommended that the matter not be taken up until placed on the agenda of the next meeting; and that in fact the matter was placed on the agenda of the respondent's next special meeting, at which time no action was taken on it.

 

            11.       It is found that the member of the respondent who requested the enlargement of the committee also had a particular parent, the complainant, in mind as the additional member, and immediately after the meeting notified the complainant that he had been so appointed.

 

            12.       It is found, however, that the respondent had not reached a consensus to add the complainant as a member.

 

            13.       The complainant maintains that the minutes of the respondent's September 13, 1993 meeting are inaccurate in that the respondent reached a consensus to enlarge the committee, and only objected to his appointment in particular as the new member.

 

            14.       Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part that each public agency "shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings."

 

            15.       It is found that the disputed portion of the respondent's September 13, 1993 minutes states:

 

                        Mrs. Roche requested the addition of another parent to the Bus Safety Committee.

 

                        The request was favorably accepted but Mr. Adams, chairperson, suggested putting the request on the next meeting's agenda.

 

            16.       It is found that the disputed portion of the minutes of the respondent's September 13, 1993 meeting fairly reflects what transpired.

 

            17.       It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            18.       It is also found that the respondent's chairman's suggestion to delay consideration and action on the request to enlarge the respondent's membership until the matter was placed on the agenda of the next meeting was consistent with both the spirit and letter of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 93-281                           Page 3

 

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

 

            1.         With respect to the filing of notices of its special meetings, henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            2.         With respect to the allegation concerning the minutes of the respondent's September 13, 1993 meeting, the complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 9, 1994.

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-281                           Page 4

 

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:

Mr. Ben Klatzko

16 Gail Drive

P.O. Box 171

Northford, CT 06472-0171

 

North Branford Bus Safety Committee

c/o Loren Lettick, Esq.

Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission