FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Ann C. Brown, Charles E. Elias and John D. Simonds,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-136
Mayor of Ledyard, North Stonington First Selectman and Preston First Selectman,
Respondents July 27, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 3, 1994, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated May 22, 1994 and filed with the Commission on May 23, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying them access to:
a. meetings being held by the respondents concerning the alliance formed by the towns of Ledyard, North Stonington and Preston (the "towns") to oppose the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe's (the "tribe") application to have the federal government transfer property, owned by the tribe, in trust;
b. facilitation/mediation meetings being held by or among the respondents and Conflict Management Group ("CMG"), a private company hired by the towns and the tribe to facilitate resolution of the trust acqusition dispute, described in paragraph 1a., above; and
c. records of all meetings held or concerning the alliance and trust acquisition issue, described in paragraph
Docket #FIC 94-136 Page 2
1a., above, including minutes, agendas, contracts, correspondence of CMG, bills, vouchers and any other existing records of payment submitted by CMG, or individuals associated with CMG.
3. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and decisions in Docket Numbers FIC 93-190, Susann Viafora and Norwich Bulletin v. Preston Board of Selectmen, Ledyard Town Council and North Stonington Board of Selectmen and FIC 93-235, Keith Fontaine and Norwich Bulletin v. Preston Board of Selectmen, Ledyard Town Council and North Stonington Board of Selectmen.
4. It is found that in January 1993, the tribe filed an application with the Bureau of Indian Affairs requesting that certain lands located within the towns be taken into trust.
5. It is found that the towns adopted policies to oppose the tribe's application to have the land transferred in trust.
6. It is found that as a result of the dispute which arose between the towns and the tribe concerning the trust acquisition issue, it was apparent to the towns that litigation was imminent.
7. It is found that at the request of the Secretary of the Interior, Congressman Gejdenson, Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd the towns and the tribe agreed in December 1993 to participate in a mediation process to determine if the dispute could be resolved without resorting to litigation.
8. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2a. and 2b. above, it is found that the respondents, in their capacities as chief executive officers, have met among themselves and at times with CMG to discuss matters of joint concern to the towns and the tribe regarding the trust acquisition issue.
9. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., excludes certain types of meetings from the general definition of meeting. One such category is "an administrative ... meeting of a single-member public agency."
10. It is found that under the facts of this case and the evidence presented the meetings described in paragraph 8 above, are administrative meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b),
Docket #FIC 94-136 Page 3
G.S., and are therefore excluded from the meeting definition of 1-18a(b), G.S.
11. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c. above, at the hearing in this matter, the complainants indicated that the respondents had provided them with certain records, and further that they had no reason to believe that all existing records had not been turned over to them.
12. It is therefore found that the respondents provided the complainants with the requested records.
13. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate any of the complainants' rights under the FOI Act.
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.
2. The Commission takes this opportunity to caution the respondents that the exclusion allowed for administrative meetings under 1-18a(b), G.S., is very narrowly defined, and therefore all other types of meetings, not otherwise excluded under 1-18a(b) and (e), G.S., must be open to the public.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 27, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-136 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:
ANN C. BROWN
234 Mystic Road
North Stonington, CT 06359
CHARLES E. ELIAS
36 Ella Wheeler Road
North Stonington, CT 06359
JOHN D. SIMONDS
70B Bergius Lane
North Stonington, CT 06359
MAYOR OF LEDYARD, NORTH STONINGTON FIRST SELECTMAN AND PRESTON FIRST SELECTMAN
c/o Frank A. Manfredi, Esq.
Cotter, Greenfield, Manfredi & Lenes, P.C.
223 West Town Street
Norwich, CT 06360
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission