The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 23, 2015, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

     2.  By letter dated and filed February 6, 2015, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”) by holding a regular meeting on January 26, 2015 during a blizzard.  The complainant contends that weather conditions were so severe that the public was effectively prevented from attending the meeting.  As part of his appeal, the complainant has requested that the Commission declare all actions taken at this meeting null and void. 

     3.  Section 1-225(b), G.S., provides, in relevant part, as follows:

     4.  Section 1-225(c), G.S., provides, in relevant part, as follows:

     5.  It is found that respondent Court of Common Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2015.  It is found that such meeting was properly noticed and that the agenda was available to the public prior to the meeting in accordance with §1-225(b) and (c), G.S.  It is found that the meeting convened at 7:16 PM and adjourned at 8:05 PM.

     6.  It is found further that, on January 26, 2015, the National Weather Service issued blizzard warnings for all of Connecticut.  In response to these warnings, it is found that, on January 26, 2015, the Governor prohibited all vehicular travel on State roads after 9:00 PM; CT Transit suspended bus service; and the Mayor for the City of Hartford closed city offices and issued a parking ban on city streets.

     7.  While the complainant conceded at the contested case hearing that there is no provision in the FOI Act that expressly prohibits a public agency from convening a properly noticed meeting during a snow storm, he contends that the decision to go forward with the meeting despite severe weather conditions violated that spirit of the open government laws. 

     8.  While the complainant’s position is understandable, the Commission is charged with administering the FOI Act as it is written.  See §1-205 (d), G.S. (“The Commission shall, subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, promptly review the alleged violation of said Freedom of Information Act and issue an order pertaining to the same.”).  The Commission declines to supplement the FOI Act with prohibitions that were not included by the Legislature itself.

     9.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate any provision of the FOI Act.
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.

     Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 24, 2015.

_______________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:

Kenneth Krayeske
1 Linden Place
Unit 107
Hartford, CT  06106

President, Court of Common Council, City of Hartford;
Court of Common Council, City of Hartford; and
City of Hartford
c/o Cynthia Lauture, Esq.
Office of the Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT  06103

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2015-076/FD/cac/9/24/2015