FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Paul C. Halas, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-48
Planning Commission of the Town of Redding,
Respondent May
25, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on March 25, 1988, at which time the
complainant 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 of complaint filed with the
Commission on February 10, 1988, the complainant alleged that the respondent
violated §1-21, G.S., at its January 12, 1988 meeting by failing to take an
affirmative 2/3 vote to consider and act upon a matter that was not on the
agenda for that meeting.
3. The complainant also alleged that the
minutes of the meeting in question were not filed within 7 days as required by
§1-21(a), G.S.
4. The complainant further alleged that the
respondent failed to comply with the notice provisions set forth at §8-8, G.S.
5. It is concluded that the Commission lacks
jurisdiction over §8-8, G.S., and will therefore not treat it herein.
6. The complainant requested that the January
12, 1988 meeting be declared null and void, that a civil penalty be imposed
against the respondent and that he be awarded costs for prosecuting this
appeal.
Docket #88-48 Page 2
7. It is found that the agenda for the
respondent's January 12, 1988 meeting included the following items of business:
a. Approval
of the minutes of the October 27, 1987 and November 10, 1987 meetings;
b. Policy;
and
c. Administrative
matters.
8. It is further found that under the item of
business entitled "administrative matters," the respondent voted to
approve the Sanfordtown Meadow subdivision application.
9. It is found that with respect to the
Sanfordtown Meadow application, the agenda for the January 12, 1988 meeting did
not adequately inform the public that the respondent would consider and act
upon the application.
10. It is also found that the respondent failed
to take an affirmative 2/3 vote of its members present and voting, so that it
could consider and act upon the Sanfortown Meadow application under new
business.
11. It is therefore concluded that with respect
to that item of business, the respondent violated §1-21(a), G.S.
12. It is found, however, that at a properly
noticed meeting on February 23, 1988, the respondent voted to vacate the action
that had been taken at the January 12, 1988 meeting concerning the Sanfordtown
Meadow application. This action was
taken by the respondent because it felt the notice for the January 12, 1988
meeting was not sufficiently specific with respect to that item of business.
13. With respect to the minutes of the
respondent's January 12, 1988 meeting, it is found that they were not placed on
file and made available for public inspection until March 23, 1988, in
violation of §1-21(a), G.S.
14. It is concluded that the respondent violated
§1-21(a), G.S., when it failed to timely file and make available the minutes of
its January 12, 1988 meeting, as required by §1-21(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 88-48 Page 3
15. The Commission notes that under the facts of
this case, it would serve no useful purpose to declare the January 12, 1988
meeting null and void, and therefore declines to do so.
16. The Commission also declines to impose a
civil penalty against the respondent as requested by the complainant.
17. With respect to the complainant's request
for costs, it is found that there is no provision under the Freedom of Information
Act which allows for such reimbursement.
The complainant's request is therefore denied.
The following order by
the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall act in
strict compliance with §1-21(a), G.S.
2. The respondent shall, within thirty days of
the Final Decision in this matter, schedule and attend a workshop to be
conducted by one of the Commission's staff attorneys, on the requirements of
the Freedom of Information Act. This
workshop shall be attended by each member of the respondent, and shall be open
to other town officials, as well as members of the public.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of May 25, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission