FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Thane Grauel and the Westport Minuteman,

 

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 1996-099

 

Revaluation Study Committee, Town of
Westport and Town Attorney, Town of
Westport,

 

 

Respondents

March 12, 1997

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC1996-184, Thane Grauel, Douglas Healy and the Westport Minuteman v. Joseph Arcudi, First Selectman, Town of Westport; Andrew Fink, Town Attorney, Town of Westport; and Garson Heller, Chairman, Revaluation Study Committee, Town of Westport.  The case captions have been amended to correctly identify the complainants in each case.

The matters were heard as contested cases on October 8, 1996, at which time the complainants and respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaints.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.         The respondent town attorney is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         By letter of complaint dated March 15, 1996, and filed with the Commission on March 21, 1996, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that on February 22, 1996 they learned that the respondent Revaluation Study Committee (“RSC”) conducted secret or unnoticed meetings on January 31, 1996, and at other times. The complainants requested that the Commission declare all actions taken at the unnoticed meetings null and void.

 

            3.         In their complaint, the complainants also alleged that the respondent town attorney had improperly determined and advised the town’s first selectman that the RSC was not

 

 

a public agency, but a study group.  The complainants requested that the Commission declare all actions taken at the unnoticed meetings null and void.

 

            4.         It is found that by memorandum dated February 22, 1996, the respondent town attorney advised the town’s first selectman that the RSC was not a public agency, but a study group, and as such was not subject to Connecticut’s Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.

 

            5.         The complainants contended that the RSC is a public agency and as such its meetings were subject to the open meeting provisions of the FOI Act, specifically the open meetings provisions of §1-21(a), G.S.

 

            6.         Section 1-18a(a), G.S., defines public agency, in relevant part, as:

 

any executive, administrative or legislative office of the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official ….  (Emphasis added.)

 

            7.         It is found that the five-person RSC, comprised of citizens, former and incumbent public officials, was established by the town’s first selectman in his capacity as chief executive officer for the town.

 

            8.         It is found that the charge given the respondent RSC by the first selectman was to study and report on: the state’s law dealing with the method of, and time period for, municipal implementation of town-wide revaluation of residential and commercial real property; provide an opinion about the accuracy of the revaluation of the town’s real property by the town’s tax assessor; and examine the consequences of delaying revaluation, if necessary.

 

            9.         It is concluded that the RSC is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            10.       It is found that the respondent RSC convened meetings for which no notices of meeting or agendas were filed, and no minutes or records of votes were prepared and filed.

 

            11.       The respondents contend that the RSC’s meetings were staff meetings of the first selectman’s office and therefore were not meetings subject to the provisions of the FOI Act, by virtue of §1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            12.       Section 1-21(a), G.S., states that:

 

[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subsection (e) of section 1-18a, shall be open to the public….

 

            13.       In relevant part, §1-18a(b), G.S., states that:

 

"[m]eeting" 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 .…

 

            14.       It is found that although the respondent RSC had neither decision-making authority, nor the ability to take any action concerning the town’s revaluation process, it clearly had advisory power over the process by virtue of its mandate to report to, and advise the first selectman concerning its findings about the accuracy and timeliness of the tax assessor’s performance of the town’s property revaluation.

 

            15.       It is found further that the meetings were not staff meetings of the first selectmen as claimed.

 

            16.       It is found that the meetings of the respondent RSC were meetings within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S., subject to the open meetings provisions of §1-21(a), G.S..

 

            17.       It is concluded that the respondent RSC violated the provisions of §1-21(a), G.S., by failing to: file notices of, and agendas for its meetings; and by failing to maintain and file minutes and a record of any votes taken at its meetings.

 

            18.       It is further concluded that the respondent town attorney did not violate the provisions of the FOI Act, under the facts of this case.

 

            19.       It is also found that the RSC has been disbanded and while in existence it took no action other than to advise and report to the first selectman on the decisions and opinions reached by the committee.

 

            20.       Given the finding in paragraph 18, above, there is no basis for the imposition of a null an void order by the Commission as requested by the complainants.

 

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

 

 

            1.         Henceforth the respondent RSC shall strictly comply with the open meeting requirements of §1-21(a), G.S.

 

            2.         The complaint is dismissed against the respondent town attorney.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 12, 1997.

 

 

 

__________________________

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:

 

Thane Grauel and the Westport Minuteman

c/o  Alan Neigher, Esq.

Byelas & Neigher

1804 Post Road East

Westport, CT 06880-5683

 

 

Revaluation Study Committee, Town of Westport; and Town Attorney, Town of Westport

c/o  Andrew F. Fink, Esq.

257 Riverside Avenue

Westport, CT 06880

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC1996-099/FD/eal/03201997