Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a jury that they rose to the level of a “meeting” as defined by the Freedom of Information Act, and consequently, would not be prohibited by the statute. See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 1-200(2) (" 'Meeting' means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, any any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency ... to discuss or act upon a matter of which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. 'Meeting' does not include ... any chance meeting, or a social meeting neither planned nor intended for the purpose of discussing matters relating to official business”); Lawson v. East Hampton Planning and Zoning Comm’n, 2005 WL 3662907 at *1-3 (Conn.Super.Ct. Dec. 13, 2005)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding annexation ordinance only voidable due to procedural irregularities
B. holding that contract failed for indefiniteness because there were essential terms upon which there was no agreement
C. recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest
D. holding that procedural irregularities do not amount to a denial of fundamental fairness even where there was a recess during which there were unrecorded conversations between commission members
E. holding that even when there is a conflict of evidence before the commission and the evidence was such that the commission could have reasonably reached a contrary decision the commissions decision was not arbitrary and capricious
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.