FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION Supplemental

Bailey Cook, III

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 86-341

Seymour Board of Police Commissioners

Respondent May 27, 1987

By final decision in the above-captioned contested case, rendered at its regular meeting held on March 11, 1987, the Commission ordered the respondent to appear April 27, 1987 before the undersigned hearing officer for the purpose of conducting a hearing pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., to determine whether a civil penalty against the respondent should be assessed and if so, in what amount. Accordingly, a hearing was held on that date, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented exhibits and argument on the issue of a civil penalty.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of the findings contained in the final decision adopted by the Commission in the above-captioned case at its March 11, 1987 regular meeting are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

3. The respondent claims that a civil penalty should not be imposed because the complainant failed to make timely payments to receive notification of its meetings from May 1986 to October 1986.

4. The respondent also claims that its recording secretary inadvertently failed to send the complainant notices of the respondent's November 20, 1986 regular and November 24, 1986 special meetings and notification was resumed once payment was made by the complainant on December 1, 1986.

5. It is found that the complainant failed to make timely payments to receive notification of the respondent's meetings from September 1986 to December 1986.

Docket #FIC 86-341 Page 2

6. It is concluded, however, in the sound discretion of the Commission, that the imposition of a civil penalty is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The Commission suggests that in the future when a person makes a written request to receive notice of its meetings, the respondent should establish reasonable time limitations for receiving payment for such notices under 1-21c, G.S., and should inform the requester of such time limitations and when such notices will be discontinued because of that person's failure to make timely payments.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 27, 1987.

ÿ

Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission