FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
John J. Cassidy,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-10
Plainville Town Council and
Plainville Town Manager,
Respondents October 25, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 15, 1995, at which time the complainant 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
leter of complaint filed January 12, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission,
alleging that the respondents conducted improper meetings on December 16, 1994
and January 3, 1995.
3. It
is found that two vacancies existed in the respondent town council in December
of 1994.
4. It
is found that the complainant and another individual submitted their names to
the chairman of the town council as candidates to fill those vacancies.
5. It
is found that the Republican and Democratic town committees also each submitted
the name of an individual nominated by the respective party's leadership to
fill the vacancies.
6. It
is found that the respondent town manager, at the direction of the chairman of
the respondent town council, met on December 16, 1994 with the two individuals
nominated by the town committees, to familiarize them with the issues then
before the town council.
7. It
is also found that the town manager provided those two party-nominated
individuals with certain informational materials, at no charge.
Docket #FIC 95-10 Page
2
8. It
is found that neither the complainant nor the other individual who sought to
fill a vacancy without party nomination were invited to the December 16, 1994
meeting, or were provided with free informational materials.
9. The
complainant maintains that he should have been treated equally with the
party-nominated candidates, and that the December 16, 1994 meeting should have
been open to him.
10. Section
1-21(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that the meetings of all public
agencies, except executive sessions, shall be open to the public.
11. Section
1-18a(b), G.S., defines "meeting" to mean:
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.
12. It
is found that the December 16, 1994 meeting of the town manager with the party-nominated
candidates was not a hearing or other proceeding, or a convening or assembly of
a quorum of a multimember public agency, or a communication by or to a quorum
of a multimember public agency.
13. It
is therefore concluded that the December 16, 1994 meeting was not a
"meeting" of a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(b),
G.S.
14. It
is found that the respondent town manager, at the direction of the chairman of
the respondent town council, filed on December 29, 1994 a notice of a special
meeting of the town council to be held on January 3, 1995.
15. The
complainant maintains that the January 3, 1995 meeting was improper because
only the town council, and not the town manager, can call a meeting of the town
council; because the January 3, 1995 meeting was not really a special meeting,
but simply a regular meeting held on a rescheduled day; and because the
respondents scheduled the meeting for a day when they knew he would be out of
town, thereby excluding him from the meeting at which the vacancies to the town
council would be filled.
16. At
the request of the complainant, the Commission takes administrative notice of
sections 1 through 4 of chapter IV of the Plainville town charter
(qualifications, appointment,
Docket #FIC 95-10 Page
3
tenure, compensation, duties,
and powers of the town manager); sections 1 through 7 of chapter III (powers,
composition, compensation, organization, procedure, other officers, and
introduction of ordinances and resolutions of the town council); section 5 of
chapter II (vacancies); and sections 1 through 9 of chapter X (transition and
miscellaneous provisions).
16. It
is concluded, however, that the complainant has not alleged any violations of
the Freedom of Information Act with respect to the January 3, 1995 meeting.
17. The
Commission recognizes the complainant's frustration at being excluded from the
town council vacancy, and at not being extended the courtesies afforded to the
party-nominated candidates, but concludes that his exclusion was not related to
any demonstrated violations of the Freedom of Information 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.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-10 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:
John J. Cassidy
7 Florence Lane
Plainville, CT 06062
Plainville Town Council and
Plainville Town Manager
c/o Robert A. Michalik, Esq.
Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik
& Lynch
136 West Main Street
P.O. Box 2950
New Britain, CT 06050-2950
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission