Freedom of Information Commission

of the State of Connecticut

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                    FINAL DECISION

 

Michael Selvaggi,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                              Docket #FIC 1996-114

 

Board of Aldermen, City of Milford,

 

                        Respondent                                          November 13, 1996

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 13, 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 dated April 3, postmarked April 4, and filed April 8, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

a) meeting on March 7, 1996 without notice to the public;

b) denying the public the right to attend the meeting;

c) meeting in executive session for an improper purpose and without

    stating the reason for such executive session;

d) imposing conditions precedent to public attendance at a portion of the

    meeting;

e) failing to prepare minutes of the meeting or a record of votes taken; and

f) failing to enter the meeting upon the Chairman’s Journal of Meetings as

   required by the Milford Code, Art. III, § 9.

 

The complainant also requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondent.

 

            3.  The respondent contends that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complainant is not “aggrieved.”

 

            4.  It is concluded that aggrievement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing an appeal with the Commission, and accordingly, the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

 

            5.  With respect to the allegation contained in paragraph 2f), above, it is found that the complainant has failed to allege a violation of the FOI Act, and consequently, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over that allegation.

 

            6.  It is found that on March 7, 1996, at the request of the minority party aldermen, two auditors who had prepared the City of Milford’s (hereinafter “the city”) independent audit report met with six aldermen to answer their questions about the audit report and explain certain terminology utilized in the report.

 

            7.  It is found that although it was not noticed as a meeting and no agenda was available, several members of the public learned of the intended gathering described in paragraph 6, above, and went to city hall on March 7, 1996 to attend the gathering.

 

            8.  It is found that the Chairman of the respondent denied the complainant and other members of the public and press access to attend the gathering.

 

            9.  It is further found that approximately twenty-five minutes into the closed session, one of the aldermen arrived late, threw the locked door open and invited the public inside; a consensus was then taken of the members of the respondent who were present, and the public was permitted to attend the balance of the gathering.

 

10.  It is found that no minutes were created of the March 7, 1996 gathering described in paragraph 6, above.

 

            11.  The respondent maintains that the gathering at issue was not a “meeting” for purposes of the FOI Act because:  a quorum of the respondent was not present; the meeting was neither expressly nor impliedly authorized by the full membership of the respondent; and nothing over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power was discussed.

 

            12.  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 … to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.” 

 

            13.  It is found that the respondent is a fifteen member board and that eight members constitute a quorum of the respondent.

 

            14.  It is found that the six members of the respondent present at the March 7, 1996 gathering did not constitute a quorum of the respondent, and were not authorized to conduct any business on behalf of the respondent.

 

            15. It is found that although the full membership of the respondent was aware of the gathering, the six aldermen who attended did so voluntarily and not at the suggestion or direction of the respondent.

 

16.  It is also found that no statutory or charter provision required the respondent to conduct an educational workshop on auditing terminology and concepts.

 

            17.  It is therefore concluded that the gathering described in paragraph 6, above, was neither a convening or assembly of a quorum of a public agency, nor was it a hearing or other proceeding of the respondent, within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            18.  Consequently, it is concluded that under the facts of this case, the gathering described in paragraph 6, above, was not a “meeting” under §1-18a(b), G.S., and therefore was not subject to the requirements 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.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

            2.  Although the respondent was not bound by the open meeting provisions of the FOI Act, given the apparently educational purpose of the gathering in question, the Commission believes there was no reason to have excluded the complainant and other members of the public from attending the session in question from the outset.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 13, 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:

 

Michael Selvaggi

574 Milford Point Road

Milford, CT 06460

 

 

Board of Aldermen, City of Milford

c/o  Marilyn J. Lipton, Esq.

City Hall

110 River Street

Milford, CT 06460

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC 1996-114/FD/eal/112296