FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                         FINAL DECISION

 

Fred Laberge and New Haven Register,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                       Docket #FIC 88-269

 

Reverend Edwin R. Edmonds, Clifton Graves, Miguel Rodriguez, Ralph W. Halsey, III, John Horvath, Julia P. Hamilton and Eleanor L. Zimmermann,

 

                        Respondents                                             October 11, 1989

 

The above-captioned matter previously was heard as a contested case on September 29, 1988.  The Commission issued its Final Decision on December 22, 1988, concluding that the respondent New Haven Board of Education had violated §§1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S., without reasonable grounds, and ordering the individual members of the board named herein to appear before the Commission to show cause why a civil penalty should not be imposed pursuant to §1-21i(b), G.S.

 

            The above-captioned matter was then heard on March 9, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony and argument on the issue of the imposition of a civil penalty.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1. At all times material to this contested case, the named respondents were members of the New Haven Board of Education and therefore are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of the Final Decision in Docket #FIC 88-269 issued December 22, 1988 are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

 

            3. The complaint constituting the notice of appeal in this matter was filed with the Commission on July 6, 1988.

 

            4. It is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to now impose a civil penalty against the respondents by virtue of the provisions of §1-21i(b), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 88-269                                                                                                 Page 2

 

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

 

            1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

            2. The Commission, however, wishes to advise the respondents that under the circumstances in this case, including the refusal by the respondents to testify before the Commission to defend their actions, it was convinced that the imposition of a substantial civil penalty would have been warranted for the egregious statutory violations found in this case.  In particular, the Commission was unpersuaded by the arguments of respondents' counsel that the respondents' violations of §§1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S., were unknowing, inadvertent or in good faith.

 

PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

FRED LABERGE AND NEW HAVEN REGISTER

40 Sargent Drive

New Haven, CT 06511

 

REVEREND EDWIN R. EDMONDS, CLIFTON GRAVES, MIGUEL RODRIQUEZ,

RALPH W. HALSEY, III, JOHN HORVATH, JULIA P. HAMILTON, AND ELEANOR L. ZIMMER

c/o  Margot K. Burkle, Esquire

Harper Law Firm,

956 Chapel Street

New Haven, CT 06510

 

            Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 11, 1989.

 

                                                                                                   

                                                                             Tina C. Frappier

                                                                             Acting Clerk of the Commission