FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

Susan G. Kniep,

 

                        Complainant,

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 95-319

 

East Hartford Town Council,

 

                        Respondent,                                                     July 10, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 28, 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 September 15, 1995 and filed with the

Commission on September 20, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by removing an item concerning a referral of property to the Real Estate Acquisition and Disposition committee, (hereinafter “the item”), from the respondent’s September 5, 1995 meeting agenda without disclosing to the public the reason for such removal.

3.     At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that certain members of the respondent met and decided in a caucus to remove the item from the meeting agenda, and that whereas discussions in a caucus are proper, decision-making is not.  The complainant also contended that a non-caucus member of the respondent may have participated in the caucus decision to remove the item from the meeting agenda.

4.      It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on September 5, 1995 (hereinafter “the meeting”), during which it voted to remove the item from the meeting agenda.

5.     It is found that prior to the meeting the Democratic members serving on the respondent (who constitute a majority) met in a caucus and discussed and arrived at a consensus to remove the item from the meeting agenda.

 

6.     It is found that the Republican members of the respondent also met in a caucus prior to the meeting and discussed the removal of the item from the meeting agenda.

 

7.     It is found that no non-caucus member met with the Democratic members of the respondent during their caucus, as described in paragraph 5, above.

 

8.     Section 1-18a(b), G.S., provides that “meeting” shall not include a caucus of members of a single political party notwithstanding that such members also constitute a quorum of a public agency.

 

9.     It is concluded that the caucus of the Democratic members, as described in paragraph 5, above, is not a meeting pursuant to §1-18a(b), G.S.

10. It is concluded that the discussions and consensus reached during the caucus of the Democratic members, as described in paragraph 5, above, are not subject to the disclosure requirements pursuant to §1-18a(b), G.S.

11. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to disclose to the complainant the reason for the removal of the agenda item discussed during the caucus of the Democratic members of the respondent.

 

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 takes this opportunity to suggest to the respondent agency members that in keeping with the spirit of the FOI law maximum disclosure concerning decisions made may lead to less speculation and a more harmonious and fruitful  relationship among agency members.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 10, 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:

 

Susan G. Kniep

50 Olde Roberts Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

 

East Hartford Town Council

c/o Jose R. Ramirez, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

 

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FD/Fic.95-319/07101996