FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Kevin J. Connolly,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-323
North Haven Board of Police Commissioners,
Respondent May 25, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 20, 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 dated November 22, 1993 and postmarked November 24, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that three members of the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by convening in secret at an unnoticed time.
3. Specifically, in his November 22, 1993 letter the complainant alleged that sometime prior to the respondent's scheduled October 8, 1993 special meeting, three members of the respondent discussed and decided in secret that certain changes were necessary within the North Haven Police Department ("police department") with respect to the department's table of organization, and personnel promotions. The complainant requested that the Commission declare null and void the action taken at such secret meeting.
4. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., in pertinent part 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 ... to discuss or act upon a matter over which the agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
Docket #FIC 93-323 Page 2
5. It is found that three members of the respondent convened an unnoticed meeting sometime after the respondent's October 5, 1993 regular meeting but prior to the respondent's October 8, 1993 special meeting, and at that time discussed and agreed that the changes within the police department, described in paragraph 3, above, were necessary.
6. Section 1-21i(b), G.S., provides that in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, a notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.
7. The respondent contends that this Commission lacks jurisdiction over the complaint because the notice of appeal was not filed within the appropriate thirty day period.
8. The complainant on the other hand, contends that he did not become aware of the unnoticed meeting until November 10, 1993, after reviewing documents which contained information from the official October 8, 1993 special meeting transcript.
9. It is found that both the minutes and the verbatim transcript of the respondent's October 8, 1993 special meeting contain language which expressly indicates that three members of the respondent discussed and concluded that the changes described in paragraphs 3 and 5, above, should be made.
10. It is also found that the October 8, 1993 minutes, described in paragraph 9, above, were reviewed and approved at the respondent's regular meeting of October 26, 1993, which meeting the complainant attended.
11. It is found that the complainant received notice in fact of the unnoticed meeting on October 26, 1993.
12. It is therefore concluded that the notice of appeal was filed within the required thirty day period and that the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.
13. It is further concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., when it convened the unnoticed meeting, as described in paragraph 5, above, and denied the complainant the right to attend such meeting.
14. It is found that based upon the agreement reached at the unnoticed meeting that the changes, as described in paragraph 5 above, were needed within the police department, the three members of the respondent, at the respondent's October 8, 1993 special meeting, voted to approve such changes.
Docket #FIC 93-323 Page 3
15. It is found that one of the promotional changes voted upon and approved by the three members of the respondent at the October 8, 1993 special meeting was the promotion of sergeant Onofrio, an officer of the North Haven Police Department, to lieutenant.
16. It is also found that at the time of the hearing in this matter the complainant, the respondent and Onofrio are involved in a pending federal lawsuit which concerns the changes in the department's table of organization and the promotions voted upon and approved by the three members of the respondent at the October 8, 1993 meeting.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. All actions taken by the respondent board at its October 8, 1993 meeting are hereby null and void.
2. The respondent shall forthwith construct minutes of the unnoticed meeting, described more fully at paragraph 5 of the findings, above, which minutes shall apprise the public of the proceedings of that meeting.
3. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the meeting requirements as forth in 1-21, G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 25, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-323 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:
Chief Kevin Connolly
North Haven Police Department
8 Linsley Street
North Haven, CT 06473
North Haven Board of Police Commissioners
c/o North Haven Police Department
8 Linsley Street
North Haven, CT 06473
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission