FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Theodore R. Powell, III,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-341
Colchester Board of Education,
Respondent June 8, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 1, 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 December 16, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent conducted an unnoticed meeting on December 9, 1993, and requesting that the Commission declare the meeting null and void.
3. It is found that the respondent board met on November 23, 1993 for discussion and possible action on the appointment of an ad hoc committee to address special education concerns.
4. It is found that the chairman of the respondent at the November 23, 1993 meeting appointed three board of education members to be ad hoc committee members, and that the remainder of the ad hoc committe was to consist of two parents and two teachers.
5. It is found that a variety of selection criteria were discussed at the November 23, 1993 meeting, but no criteria were agreed upon by the board as the criteria actually to be applied in the selection of parent and teacher members.
6. It is found that two board members who were to be members of the ad hoc committee volunteered at the November 23, 1993 meeting to meet with the superintendent to select the teacher and parent members of the committee.
7. It is found that the superintendent and the two board members gathered together on December 9, 1993, and discussed the parents who had volunteered for the ad hoc committee and the criteria that were to be used in selecting them.
Docket #FIC 93-341 Page 2
8. Specifically, it is found that the superintendent and the two board members discussed which parents and teachers had volunteered and how; looked at information about the volunteers' names, addresses, telephone numbers, years in the community, and years in special education; and discussed which volunteers met the selection criteria.
9. It is found that the parents with the longest terms of residency in Colchester and whose children had been special education students the longest were selected at the December 9, 1993 gathering to be members of the ad hoc committee.
10. It is found that the complainant, who was a founding member of a special education parents support group, had volunteered to be a member of the ad hoc committee, but was not chosen based on the selection criteria applied on December 9, 1993.
11. It is also found that only one teacher had volunteered to become a member of the ad hoc committee, and that teacher was selected at the December 9, 1993 gathering.
12. In relevant part, 1-18a(b) defines meeting to mean:
"Meeting" means 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. "Meeting" shall not include: ... an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency ....
13. In relevant part, 1-18a(a) defines "public agency" to mean:
"Public agency" or "agency" means any executive, administrative or legislative office of the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official .... [Emphasis added.]
14. The respondent maintains that the December 9, 1993 gathering and the actions taken there represented an
Docket #FIC 93-341 Page 3
administrative task performed by the superintendent with the volunteer help of two board members.
15. It is found, however, that the power to appoint members of the ad hoc committee presumptively resided in the respondent board of education.
16. It is also found that the superintendent was given no direction by the board to exercise the power to appoint the parent and teacher members of the ad hoc committee, and also was given no direction by the board as to what criteria to apply in selecting the parent and teacher members.
17. It is therefore concluded that the superintendent was not performing an administrative function when he gathered with the two board members on December 19, 1993.
18. It is also found that the two board members and the superintendent in fact functioned as a committee of the board to select, or recommend to the board the apppointment of, the remaining parent and teacher members to the ad hoc committee.
19. It is therefore concluded that the de facto committee that gathered on December 9, 1993 was a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
20. It is further concluded that the gathering of the de facto committee on December 9, 1993 was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
21. It is found that the December 9, 1993 meeting of the de facto committee was not noticed.
22. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to file a notice of the December 9, 1993 meeting.
23. It is found that, due to complaints raised by special education parents about the selection process, the ad hoc committee as a whole never met, and was dissolved by the chairman of the respondent on February 7, 1994.
24. Based upon the finding in paragraph 23, above, the Commission in its discretion declines to declare null and void any actions taken at the December 9, 1993 meeting.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket #FIC 93-341 Page 4
1. Henceforth, any committees of the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-18a(a), 1-18a(b), and 1-21, G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 8, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-341 Page 5
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. Theodore R. Powell, III
31 O'Connell Road
Colchester, CT 06415
Colchester Board of Education
c/o Victor Schoen, Esq.
Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission