FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Mr. and Mrs. Leonard M.
Heine, Jr.
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 89-306
Weston Board of Selectmen,
Weston Town Administrator and Weston Planning and Zoning Commission
Respondents October
11, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on August 25, 1989, at which time the complainants and the respondents
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. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letters
dated July 11, 1989 and hand-delivered to the respondents on July 13, 1989, the
complainants requested, among other items, copies of communications or
documents submitted by the respondent Board of Selectmen to the respondent
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "P&Z commission")
concerning a proposed accessway to Keene Park.
3. By letter
dated July 20, 1989 and filed with this Commission on July 24, 1989, the
complainants alleged the following:
a. Their requests
for public records were denied;
b. On July 17,
1989, the respondent P&Z commission deviated from its written agenda in
violation of §1-21(a), G.S. by considering the Keene Park agenda item out of
order; and
c. The respondent P&Z commission's refusal to
reconsider its vote on the Keene Park proposal following the complainants'
comments effectively denied the complainants of notice to which they are
entitled under §1-21(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 89-306 Page
2
4. At hearing,
the complainants withdrew their complaints against the respondent Board of
Selectmen and the respondent Town Administrator.
5. Also at
hearing, the complainants withdrew those portions of their complaint against
the respondent P&Z commission concerning the disclosure of records only.
6. It is found
that on July 17, 1989 a regular meeting (hereinafter "meeting") of
the respondent P&Z commission was scheduled to begin at 8 o'clock p.m. and
that an agenda for the meeting was made available at least 24 hours prior to
that time.
7. It is found
that the meeting convened at approximately 8:02 p.m.
8. It is found
that the agenda contained items, listed in a vertical column, for inclusion at
the meeting.
9. It is found
that no new items of business not listed on the agenda were taken up at the
meeting.
10. It is found
that the items listed on the agenda were neither numbered nor assigned specific
time periods for that evening.
11. It is found
that individuals appearing before the respondent P&Z commission sometimes
request the order of their business to be adjusted, and that the respondent's
practice is to allow for items on its agendas to be heard out of sequence for
purposes of time efficiency and convenience.
12. It is found
that at the outset of the meeting, the respondent P&Z commission's chairman
requested that the Keene Park matter be taken up first as a courtesy to the
town administrator who had to drive approximately 62 miles following this
portion of the meeting.
13. It is found
that there was no objection to considering the Keene Park matter at the outset
of the meeting by anyone present when approval to do so was requested by the
respondent P&Z commission's chairman.
14. It is found
that the Keene Park proposal was approved by the respondent P&Z commission
prior to the arrival of the complainants or their attorney at the meeting.
15. It is found
that prior to the conclusion of the meeting, the complainants and the
complainants' attorney were permitted to address the respondent concerning the
Keene Park
Docket #FIC 89-306 Page
3
proposal approved earlier in
the meeting, but that the respondent declined to take further action on the
matter following those additional comments.
16. This
Commission notes that late arrival at a public meeting is done at the risk of
that late arriver who chances missing those portions of that meeting of
interest to him or her.
17. It is
concluded that the complainants have failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted under the Freedom of Information Act.
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.
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:
MR. AND MRS. LEONARD M.
HEINE, JR.
c/o Stephen M. Moore,
Esquire
Cohen and Wolf, P.C.
1115 Broad Street
P.O. Box 1821
Bridgeport, CT 06601
WESTON BOARD OF SELECTMEN,
WESTON TOWN ADMINISTRATOR AND WESTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
c/o Louis Ciccarello,
Esquire
Lovejoy, Hefferan, Rimer,
and Cuneo, P.C.
148 East Avenue
P.O. Box 390
Norwalk, CT 06852
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