FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Andrea and Rodney Pandolfo,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-363

 

Middlefield Inland Wetlands Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  May 22, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 1, 1991, 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.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  It is found that on August 21, 1990 at 1:30 p.m., a quorum of the respondent commission met on the complainants' property for the purpose of a site inspection of the property.

 

            3.  It is also found that notice of the respondent's August 21, 1990 site inspection meeting was filed with the Middlefield Town Clerk at 9:45 a.m. on August 21, 1990.

 

            4.  It is further found that the complainants were physically present at the site inspection meeting on August 21, 1990.

 

            5.  By letter of complaint dated September 17, 1990, postmarked September 21, 1990 and filed with this Commission on September 24, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by not complying with the time requirements for a notice of special meeting with respect to its August 21, 1990 site inspection meeting.

 

            6.  Because the letter of complaint initiating this appeal to the Commission was not filed or postmarked within thirty (30) days of the meeting in question, at which the complainants were present and therefore of which they had notice in fact, in accordance with 1-21i(b), G.S., the Commission lacks jurisdiction over this complaint.

 

#FIC 90-363                           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.  Because it is obvious from the facts of this case that the respondent's procedures do not assure adequate compliance with the notice of meeting provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, the Commission strongly urges the respondent to contact its staff to arrange for a workshop concerning the requirements of and compliance with the Act.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

#FIC 90-363                           Page 3

 

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:

ANDREA AND RODNEY PANDOLFO

P.O. Box 464

Middlefield, CT 06455

 

MIDDLEFIELD INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION

393 Jackson Hill Road

Middlefield, CT 06455

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission