FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Fayne E. Erickson,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 94-379

 

Chairperson, Naugatuck Board of Education,

 

                                Respondent                          June 28, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 25, 1995, 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 filed with the Commission on October 25, 1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by contacting "many Naugatuck burgesses" by phone regarding a vote that was to occur at an upcoming meeting and by not publishing any minutes of those calls.

 

                3.  It is found that on or about October 10, 1994, at a joint meeting of the Naugatuck Board of Mayor and Burgesses and the Naugatuck Board of Finance, the Naugatuck Board of Burgesses (hereinafter "board of burgesses") voted to deny a motion to consult an expert on year-round education.

 

                4.  The complainant maintains that following the meeting referred to in paragraph 3 above, one of the burgesses indicated to her that his vote was based on information provided to him by the respondent over the telephone earlier that week.

 

                5.  It is found that the respondent contacted at least three, and perhaps as many as five, members of the nine member board of burgesses by phone earlier that week regarding the subject of the upcoming vote.

 

Docket #FIC 94-379                                             Page 2

 

                6.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant alleged that:

                a) the respondent's phone calls amounted to private decision making by public officials, and that she should have conducted her discussions in public; and

 

                b) if the respondent contacted a quorum of the board of burgesses, such communications would constitute a meeting of the board of burgesses under the FOI Act.

 

                7.  With respect to the complainant's claim concerning the respondent, it is found that in making the complained of calls to certain burgesses, the respondent was acting alone and not at the direction of the Naugatuck Board of Education (hereinafter "board of education").

 

                8.  It is further found that no members of the board of education serve on the board of burgesses, and that the item voted on by the board of burgesses is not an item upon which the board of education would vote.

 

                9.  It is concluded that the respondent's actions in making telephone calls to several burgesses regarding an upcoming item before the board of burgesses did not constitute a meeting of the respondent within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

                10.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of the FOI Act by failing to publish minutes of her telephone conversations with certain burgesses.

 

                11.  With respect to the complainant's claim concerning the board of burgesses, it is concluded that this Commission lacks jurisdiction to determine whether a meeting of the board of burgesses occurred during the week prior to its October 10, 1994 meeting, as the board of burgesses is not a party in this matter.

 

                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 notes that at the hearing on this matter, both parties expressed some confusion as to what constitutes a meeting under the FOI Act.  The parties are encouraged to contact members of the Commission's staff, who are available to assist the public with questions concerning the application of the FOI Act.

 

Docket #FIC 94-379                                             Page 3

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-379                                             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:

Ms. Fayne E. Erickson

35 Brighton Road

Naugatuck, CT 06770

 

Chairperson, Naugatuck Board of Education

Ms. Rebecca Zandvliet

380 Church Street

Naugatuck, CT 06770

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission