FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In The Matter of a Complaint by                                               Final Decision

 

Lorraine Tirella,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-028

 

Chairman, Parks and Recreation Commission,

Town of Oxford and Parks and Recreation

Commission, Town of Oxford,

 

                        Respondents                                                     August 14, 1996

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 6, 1996, at which time the respondents failed to appear but the complainant appeared, 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 letter of complaint filed with this Commission on January 29, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act by considering matters not listed on the special meeting agenda of January 17, 1996 and by conducting a secret or unnoticed meeting on September 5, 1995.

 

3.  It is found that the respondents conducted a special meeting on January 17, 1996.

 

4.  It is also found that at the January 17, 1996 meeting, the respondents voted on a budget although no such item was listed on the notice for special meeting for that date.

 

5.  Section 1-21(a), G.S., does not technically require an agency to create an agenda for its special meetings.  However, §1-21(a), G.S., does require that a notice of special meeting contain the time, place and business to be transacted, which notice serves as the agenda for such meeting.

 

6.  Section 1-21(a), G.S., further provides that no business other than that specified in the agency’s notice of special meeting shall be considered at such meeting.

 

7.  It is concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of §1-21(a), G.S., by transacting business not listed on the notice of special meeting for January 17, 1996.

 

8.  With respect to the complainant’s claim concerning the September 5, 1995 meeting, it is found that on September 6, 1995, the respondents filed minutes with the town clerk stating that the meeting of September 5, 1995 was canceled due to lack of a quorum.

 

9.  It is also found, however, that at the respondent commission’s meeting of December 5, 1995, the respondents voted to amend the minutes of September 5, 1995 to indicate that a motion in fact had been made on that date.

 

10.  Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., states in pertinent part:

 

                        A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days

                        after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed

                        or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall

                        be filed within thirty days after the person filing the

                        appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was

                        held.

 

11.  The complainant claims that until the respondents’ December 5, 1995 minutes were adopted as final on January 17, 1996, she was unaware that the respondents had indeed conducted business at a meeting on September 5, 1995 and accordingly argues that she has thirty days from January 17, 1996 to file a complaint with this Commission concerning the respondents’ September 5, 1995 meeting.

 

12.  It is found that the record in this case is devoid of any evidence that the respondents’ meeting of September 5, 1995 was secret or unnoticed within the meaning of §1-21i(b)(1), G.S.  This Commission also notes that the complaint in this matter was filed well past thirty days from either September 5, 1995 or December 5, 1995.  Accordingly this Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider issues related to the September 5, 1995 meeting.

 

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

 

1.  Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-21(a), G.S.

 

2.     Any and all actions taken by the respondents at the January 17, 1996 meeting are hereby declared null and void.

           

            3.  That portion of the complaint concerning the respondents’ meeting of September 5, 1995 is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 14, 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:

 

Lorraine Tirella

11 Larkey Road

Oxford, CT 06478

 

Chairman

Parks and Recreation Commission

Town of Oxford

482 Oxford Road

Oxford, CT 06478

 

 

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

FIC1996-028,FD