FIC1995-306

Freedom of Information Commission

of the State of Connecticut

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Robert H. Boone and The Journal

Inquirer,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 1995-306

Undersecretary, State of Connecticut,

Office of Policy and Management,

Respondent August 28, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 20, 1996, at which time the respondent failed to appear, but the complainants appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. A proposed hearing officer’s report was transmitted to the parties on July 3, 1996. On July 17, 1996, the respondent filed a motion for a new hearing, which was granted by the Commission at its July 24, 1996 regular meeting.

The matter was again heard on August 9, 1996, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing, the respondent requested that the evidence taken at the first hearing be stricken from the record of the case.

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 dated August 31, 1995, and filed September 1, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent excluded them from a meeting in violation of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.

3. It is found that on July 17, 1995, the respondent issued a letter to the Town of Windsor Locks (hereinafter “the town”) notifying it of a proposed reduction in the assessed valuation of raw land at Bradley Airport, which, if implemented, would greatly reduce the town’s revenue pursuant to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (“PILOT”) program administered by the Office of Policy and Management (hereinafter “OPM”).

4. It is found that pursuant to the PILOT program, municipalities may request grant payments from OPM for tax-exempt properties located within their borders; and that OPM then reviews each claim form, verifies the assessed value for each property and determines the amount to be paid on the claim.

5. It is found that on August 3, 1995, at the request of the town’s first selectman, the respondent and three OPM staff members met with the town’s first selectman, the town’s chairman of the board of finance, town attorney, contract assessor, a state representative, a state senator and an assistant attorney general to establish a procedure for arriving at a correct valuation of the raw land at Bradley Airport.

6. It is found that a reporter for the complainant Journal Inquirer requested and was denied access to the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, by the respondent.

7. Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides that the meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, shall be open to the public.

8. The respondent maintains that the August 3, 1995 gathering was not a “meeting” because it was not a proceeding within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.

9. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., provides, in pertinent part:

“’Meeting’ means 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. ‘Meeting’ shall not include: … an administrative or staff meeting of a single member public agency … [Emphasis added.]

10. It is found that although the gathering described in paragraph 5, above, was attended by a number of public officials, those present did not constitute a quorum of any identifiable multimember public agency.

11. It is found that the respondent is a single member public agency.

12. It is found that the August 3, 1995 gathering was neither a hearing nor a proceeding of the respondent within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.

13. It is found that the August 3, 1995 gathering was an administrative meeting of a single member public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(b),G.S.

14. It is therefore concluded that it was not a “meeting” of the respondent for purposes of the FOI Act.

15. At the hearing on this matter and in his post-hearing brief, the respondent requested that the Commission hold certain witnesses in contempt for their failure to respond to a subpoena issued by his counsel.

16. It is found that the Commission lacks the statutory authority to enforce the respondent’s subpoenas and therefore the Commission denies the respondent’s request in that regard.

17. With respect to the respondent’s request to strike the evidence taken at the February 20, 1996 hearing from the record, it is also denied: Although not necessary to the findings and conclusions reached in this decision, it is part of the record of proceedings 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. Due to certain discussions at the hearing on this matter, the Commission wishes to advise the respondent for future reference, that once he has been apprised of a proceeding pending before the Commission, any communication sent to the Commission relative to that proceeding must be identified with its case caption and docket number, pursuant to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §1-21j-24.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Robert H. Boone

The Journal Inquirer

306 Progress Drive

P.O. Box 510

Manchester, CT 06045-0510

Undersecretary, State of Connecticut, Office of Policy & Management

c/o Mark Ryan

Office of the Secretary

450 Capitol Avenue MS #55SEC

P.O. Box 341441

Hartford, CT 06134-1441

c/o Shelagh P. McClure, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105