Town of Windham v. Freedom of Information Commission

711 A.2d 741, 48 Conn. App. 529, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 188
Connecticut Appellate Court·Decided April 28, 1998·No. AC 17065·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Opinion

FOTI, J.

The plaintiff town of Windham appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court dismissing its administrative appeal, taken pursuant to General Statutes § 4-183, from a final decision of the freedom [530] of information commission. The sole issue on appeal is whether a gathering of six town officials on March 20, 1995, constituted a “meeting” within the meaning of General Statutes § l-18a (b).1

The undisputed facts are as follows. The Windham board of selectmen is a public agency within the meaning of General Statutes § l-18a (a).2 On March 20, 1995, four of the selectmen, along with the chairman of the Windham board of finance and the town controller, met for approximately one-half hour. During that meeting, they discussed for five to ten minutes whether, at then-regular meeting on the following day, they would support a proposal by the first selectman that the board go into executive session to discuss a landfill contract matter. The four selectmen, one of whom was the first selectman, arrived at a consensus that they would support the proposal at the next day’s meeting.

The commission ruled that the plaintiff violated General Statutes § 1-21 by holding a meeting without notice. The trial court upheld the commission’s decision that a meeting of the Windham board of selectmen (1) to discuss why an item needed to be considered in executive session, (2) to gather support for such a session, [531] and (3) to reach a consensus was not a communication limited to notice of a meeting or the agenda of a meeting, and, therefore, was a meeting subject to the open meeting requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. General Statutes §§ 1-21 (a) and l-21a (a).

The Windham board of selectmen consists of eleven selectmen. Six members constitute a quorum. At the March 20, 1995 gathering, only four members of the board were present.. As a result, there was no quorum and, therefore, no meeting as defined by § l-18a (b).3 Our conclusion that the March 20, 1995 gathering was not a meeting makes it unnecessary to determine whether an exemption applies pursuant to § l-18a (b).

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render judgment sustaining the plaintiffs appeal.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Town of Windham v. Freedom of Information Commission, 711 A.2d 741, 48 Conn. App. 529, 1998 Conn. App. LEXIS 188 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

711 A.2d 741 (Town of Windham v. Freedom of Information Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meriden v. Freedom of Information Commission
338 Conn. 310 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2021)
Meriden v. Freedom of Information Commission
Connecticut Appellate Court, 2019
Lee & Lamont Realty v. Planning & Zoning Commission
963 A.2d 98 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2009)
Meriden Bd. of Ed. v. Freedom of Info. C., No. Cv 99 0496503s (Jun. 6, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 7046 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)
Town of Windham v. Freedom of Information Commission
718 A.2d 18 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)