Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: e-cert (case voiding law passed) what an emergency meeting is under CT law

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    earth's crust

    e-cert (case voiding law passed) what an emergency meeting is under CT law

    A "special meeting" and an "emergency meeting" are not specifically defined in FOIA.

    In Board of Selectmen v. FOIC, 294 Conn. 438, 984 A.2d 748 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the FOIC's construction of what constituted an emergency – an emergency meeting may be held only when there is no time for a special meeting notice to be posted twenty-four hours in advance – was reasonable. The court affirmed the FOIC's determination that the verbal altercation between public officials did not constitute an emergency. See also Lebanon v. Wayland, 39 Conn. Sup. 56, 61-62, 467 A.2d 1267 (1983).

    In Town of Hamden v. FOIC, 3 CSCR 185 (1988), the Superior Court upheld the FOIC's voiding of a vote taken at an allegedly "emergency meeting," upholding the FOIC's finding that the agency could not prove its inability to give the 24-hour notice required by Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-225, because it could not show a "compelling necessity" to justify an emergency meeting.

    We have had arms for over 200+ yrs ... if our legislature wants to ram this down our throat via an e-cert process they will likely find that the law will be voided.

    And folks in NY will find out similarly as their laws, I assume, are the same, basically.

    That's why filing a case before the FIC is important... I have 3 or 4 meeting violation cases pending now before the FIC .. and will continue to file violations of our meeting requirements under our FOIA Act (CGS Sec. 1-200 - 1-240, 1-225 deal strictly with meetings).

    Drawing on the dictionary definition of emergency on which it relied in the present case, the commission also regularly has required that emergencies consist of an unexpected situation or sudden occurrence of a serious and urgent nature that demands immediate action. See Madigan v. Keating, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket No. FIC 2008-281 (January 29, 2008); Eggen v. Planning Commission, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket No. FIC 1998-113 (August 26, 1998); Stonington Education Assn. v. Board of Selectmen, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket No. FIC 94-12 (July 27, 1994); Dixon v. Planning & Zoning Commission, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket No. FIC 88-430 (February 8, 1989).Bd. of Selectmen v. FREEDOM OF INFO. COM'N, 984 A. 2d 748 - Conn: Supreme Court 2010 FIC case voiding meeting FIC case did not void meeting FIC case, foreseeable work needed did not constitute emergency Body had opportunity to call meetings/not an emergency FIC did not void meeting FIC did void meeting & issued sanctions

    It looks like when rights are directly effected the FIC voids the meeting, votes, etc.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-04-2013 at 03:54 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Middletown, CT
    I don't care what anyone says about you David, I give you an E for all the effort you put into these types of things, it's an aweful lot more than I see most other people doing, and to a much further extent as well. so Kudos
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts