FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Kathleen Chipelo and People
Against Pollution,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-449
Town of Thomaston Hazardous
Waste Committee,
Respondent November
8, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on December 19, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. It is found that the respondent is a Local Emergency
Planning Committee within the meaning of the Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, 100 U.S.C. §1613.
2. It is found that the respondent consists of volunteer
police, fire, ambulance and civil defense officials appointed by the first
selectman of the town of Thomaston.
3. It is found that the respondent is responsible to
develop and annually update a comprehensive chemical emergency response plan;
receive information about accidental chemical releases; and collect, manage,
and provide public access to information on hazardous chemicals.
4. It is found that the respondent met over a period of
approximately six months beginning in May of 1988 and formulated a chemical
emergency response plan which was approved by the State of Connecticut
Department of Public Safety, Office of Civil Preparedness, on November 15,
1988.
5. The respondent maintains that it is not a public
agency because it is an advisory, fact-finding group with no decisional
authority.
Docket #FIC 88-449 Page
2
6. Section 1-18a(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part:
"Public
agency" or "agency" means ... any ... authority or official ...
of any city, town, borough, [or] municipal corporation ..., including any
committee of any such ... authority or official....
7. It is concluded that the respondent is a public agency
within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
8. It is found that the respondent met from approximately
May, 1988 through October, 1988 without posting notice of any of its meetings.
9. It is concluded that the meetings described in
paragraph 8, above, were unnoticed or secret meetings within the meaning of
§1-21i(b), G.S.
10. It is found that the complainants first learned of
the respondent's meetings on October 19, 1988.
11. By letter of complaint dated October 28, 1988 and
filed with the Commission on November 8, 1988, the complainants appealed to the
Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to post notice of any of its
meetings while formulating its comprehensive chemical emergency response plan.
12. It is concluded that the complainants appealed to the
Commission within 30 days of receiving notice in fact of the respondent's
unnoticed or secret meetings.
13. The respondent maintains that the complaint should be
dismissed because the respondent's work product constituted preliminary drafts
and advice to the first selectman which was exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§1-19(b)(1), G.S.
14. It is concluded, however, that §1-19(b)(1), G.S., is
not a defense to the notice requirements mandated by §1-21(a), G.S.
15. The respondent also maintains that the complaint is
moot because the respondent held a noticed public hearing December 1, 1988 to
allow for public comment on the comprehensive chemical emergency response plan,
and because there is no relief which the Commission could order which has not
already been afforded by the respondent.
16. It is concluded, however, that nothing in the Freedom
of Information Act permits a public agency to substitute a single public
hearing for the notice and public meeting requirements applicable to all of its
meetings.
Docket #FIC 88-449 Page
3
17. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent
violated §1-21(a) by failing to post notice of any of its meetings prior to the
date of this complaint.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the entire record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall henceforth act in strict
compliance with the notice and open meeting requirements of §1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 88-449 Page
4
PURSUANT TO SECTION
4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT
MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE
PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
KATHLEEN CHIPELO AND PEOPLE
AGAINST POLLUTION
P.O. Box 244
Thomaston, CT 06787
TOWN OF THOMASTON HAZARDOUS
WASTE COMMITTEE
c/o Michael D. Rybak,
Esquire
Guion and Stevens
P.O. Box 338
West Street
Litchfield, CT 06759
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission