FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Joan Oesterling,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-382

 

Sherman Board of Selectmen,

 

                                Respondent                          June 12, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 8, 1996, 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 dated October 28, 1995 and filed November 1, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission and alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act by failing to have minutes on file for an October 2, 1996 meeting.

 

                3.  It is found that the respondent held a meeting on October 2, 1995 for the purpose of meeting with the town's auditors to review the auditors' annual report.

 

                4.  It is further found that on or about October 12, 1995, the complainant requested a copy of the minutes of the October 2, 1995 meeting from the first selectmen's secretary and was informed by her that no minutes were created for that meeting. 

 

                5.  It is further found that at some later point in time, the complainant also requested a copy of the minutes from the first selectman and was again told that no minutes existed for the October 2, 1995 meeting.

 

                6.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent produced draft minutes of the October 2, 1995 meeting that had been created approximately one week prior to the hearing on this matter.

 

Docket #FIC 95-382                                             Page 2

 

                7.  The respondent claimed that it did not initially prepare minutes of the subject meeting because it believed that it was not required to create minutes for "informational" meetings, at which no decisions are made or votes taken.

 

                8.  In pertinent part, 1-18a(b), G.S., defines a public meeting as:

 

                "... any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency...to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power."

 

                9.  Further, in pertinent part, 1-21(a), G.S., requires that minutes of public meetings as defined in 1-18a(b), G.S., shall be made available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.

 

                10.  It is found that the October 2, 1995 meeting of the respondent was a public meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.; and it is therefore concluded that by failing to have minutes of its October 2, 1995 meeting available within seven days of such meeting, the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the minutes requirements set forth in 1-21(a), G.S.

 

                2.  The Commission notes that the respondent's initial failure to prepare minutes of its October 2, 1995 meeting seems to have been the result of a lack of understanding of FOI Act requirements.  The respondent shall contact the Commission within thirty days of the mailing of notice of final decision in this matter to schedule a workshop for all of its members and to be conducted at the Commission's office at 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 12, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-382                                             Page 3

 

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:

Joan Oesterling

62 Rte 55 West

Sherman, CT 06784

 

Sherman Board of Selectmen

c/o Randall DiBella, Esq.

Breeckner and DiBella, P.C.

75 Park Lane

P.O. Box 3009

New Milford, CT 06776

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission