FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
John R. Thompson and
Oronoque Village Condominium,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 87-349
Stratford Board of Zoning
Appeals,
Respondent March
29, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 12, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondent
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:
1. The respondent
is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated November 30, 1987, and filed with the Commission on December 1, 1987, the
complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that at the respondent's
public hearing of November 4, 1987:
a. the proceedings were not properly tape
recorded;
b. the meeting was continued to a time less
than 24 hours after the original meeting time, but the respondent did not post
a notice of continuance;
c. when the Fire Marshal decided the meeting
place was unsafe and should be relocated, the respondent did not file a timely
notice;
d. and members of the public were denied the
right to attend the meeting because the chairperson ordered those standing in
the meeting room and adjacent halls to leave and many did before the respondent
made the decision to move the meeting to a larger space in a nearby school
auditorium.
3. At the hearing
the complainants also requested that the respondent's meeting be declared null
and void.
Docket # FIC 87-349 Page
Two
4. The respondent
claims that timely notices of relocation and continuation were posted and filed
and that during the meeting no one was told to go home, merely to clear the
meeting room's aisles, doorways and adjacent hallways. The respondent also claims that the
complaint is frivolous.
5. At the
hearing, the hearing officer declined to take evidence on the allegations about
improper taping of the meeting, finding no requirement for taping public
meetings in the Freedom of Information Act.
6. It is found
that the respondent usually holds its meetings, including public hearings, in
the council chambers in the Stratford town hall.
7. It is found
that when the respondent's chairman called the meeting in question to order,
people filled the council chambers to overflowing and stood in the aisles,
doorways and adjacent hallways.
8. It is found
that right after the chairman opened the meeting, before he finished
introducing the first item of business, the Stratford fire marshal informed the
chairman that the room was unsafe.
9. It is further
found that the chairman told the public that the respondent could not conduct
the meeting under those circumstances, that the nearby school auditorium was
unavailable, and that those crowding the sides of the room and the hallway
would have to leave or the meeting could not go forward.
10. It is found
that, although many members of the public stayed until it was learned that the
school auditorium would become available, some members of the public did leave
the meeting in response to the chairman's statements.
11. It is found
that the meeting began at 7:30 p.m. as scheduled, and that the chairman
announced at 7:47 p.m. that the respondent would recess then and reconvene in
the school auditorium at 8:20 p.m.
12. It is found
that the meeting did reconvene at the new location at 8:20 p.m., attended by
many members of the public.
13. Nonetheless,
it is concluded that those members of the public who left when told to do so
were denied the right to attend a public meeting, in violation of §1-21(a),
G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-349 Page
Three
14. It is found
that the respondent did not meet its burden of proving that it conspicuously
posted a notice of continuance of hearing on or near the council chambers door
immediately after recessing.
15. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-21e, G.S., by not
fulfilling this notice requirement.
16. It is further
found that the respondent did not file a copy of the minutes of the relocated
meeting, setting forth the nature of the emergency, with the Stratford town
clerk within seventy-two hours after the meeting.
17. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-21f, G.S., by not
fulfilling this notice requirement.
18. It is also
concluded that the complaint was not frivolous.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-21(a), 1-21e, and 1-21f,
G.S.
2. The respondent
shall schedule a workshop for its members and staff on the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act. The
respondent shall make the necessary arrangements with the Commission's staff so
that the workshop shall be held no later than 60 days from the mailing of the
notice of final decision in this case.
The Commission reminds the respondent that its workshop will constitute
a public meeting to which all are welcome.
3. The Commission
hereby declares null and void all actions concerning the Barges and Clemente
appeals against the zoning enforcement officer taken at the respondent's
meeting of November 4, 1987.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of March 23, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission