FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Richard E. Blodgett, Jr., William H. Douglass and B and D Associates,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-95
North Stonington Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission,
Respondent November 23, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 16, 1994, at which time the complainants 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 dated March 14, 1994 and filed with the Commission on March 23, 1994, and supplemented by letter dated April 1, 1994 and filed with the Commission on April 4, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by convening a secret meeting on October 13, 1993.
3. Specifically, in their March 14, 1994 letter of complaint, the complainants alleged that approximately one half hour prior to the start of the respondent's scheduled October 13, 1993 regular meeting, certain members of the respondent, the First Selectman (an ex-officio member of the respondent) and the town's attorney, met in secret and discussed matters pertaining to the complainants and one of the complainants' customers, who had business to be addressed by the respondent at its scheduled October 13, 1993 regular meeting.
4. 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.
Docket #FIC 94-95 Page 2
5. It is found that the complainants received notice in fact that a secret meeting may have occurred on or about February 22, 1994.
6. 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.
7. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., defines meeting in pertinent part 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.
8. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on October 13, 1993, which meeting was duly noticed to commence at 8:30 p.m., but was not called to order until approximately 9:00 p.m.
9. It is found that the respondent consists of ten members and that two vacant positions existed at the time the October 13, 1993 regular meeting was held.
10. It is found that sometime prior to the start of the October 13 meeting and between 8:30 p.m. and 9:00 p.m., the town's attorney discussed with the First Selectman and the chairman of the respondent (in their capacities as members of the respondent), a possible conflict of interest on the part of the chairman of the respondent, resulting from the chairman's dual role as a member of the respondent and also as a Selectman.
11. It is found that immediately following the conflict of interest discussion, described in paragraph 10, above, the First Selectman then informed, Mr. Bill, another member of the respondent that the chairman would be stepping down. The First Selectman further requested that Mr. Bill chair the October 13, 1993 meeting.
12. It is found that the discussions, described in paragraphs 10 and 11, above, pertained to business over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
Docket #FIC 94-95 Page 3
13. It is found however, that the discussions, described in paragraphs 10, 11, and 12, above, did not occur among a quorum of the respondent and consequently, did not constitute a meeting of the respondent within the definition of 1-18a(b), G.S.
14. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the meeting provisions of 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 dismissed.
2. The Commission takes this opportunity to remind the respondent that private discussions which occur between agency members and others, and which occur particularly at times noticed for the scheduled start of public meetings, may give the public the perception that agency business properly addressed in an open forum is being improperly discussed behind close doors.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 23, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-95 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:
RICHARD E. BLODGETT, JR., WILLIAM H. DOUGLASS and B & D ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 207
North Stonington, CT 06359
NORTH STONINGTON CONSERVATION AND INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
c/o Marguerite C. Driscoll, Esq.
Conway & Londregan, P.C.
49 Whitehall Avenue
P.O. Box 396
Mystic, CT 06355-0396
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission