FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Allan Drury and New Haven Register,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-278
Wade Pierce, Milford City Planner,
Respondent December 12, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 5, 1990, at which time the respondent appeared, but the complainants failed to appear to prosecute their complaint. This matter was improvidently docketed under the caption of Wade Pierce, City Planner, Milford Planning and Zoning Commission. Prior to hearing, the caption for Docket #FIC 90-278 was amended to reflect the proper respondent.
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 for failure to prosecute.
2. There exists no statutory authority for the Commission, at the request of the respondent, to order the complainants to attend an educational workshop or publish an article stating that they failed to prosecute their case after having filed a complaint that was not settled or withdrawn prior to hearing. However, the Commission cautions the complainants to use the Freedom of Information Act responsibly to avoid potential impositions of civil penalties against them in future cases pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 12, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-278 Page 2
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:
ALLAN DRURY AND NEW HAVEN REGISTER
40 Sargent Drive
New Haven, CT 06511
WADE PIERCE, MILFORD CITY PLANNER
c/o Maryily J. Lipton, Esq.
Milford City Attorney
70 West River Street
Milford, CT 06460
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission