FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Denis O'Sullivan,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-463

 

Watertown Fire District Zoning Board of Appeals,

 

                        Respondent                  July 24, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 14, 1991, at which time the complainant 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.         By complaint filed with the Commission on November 16, 1990 and amended November 23, 1990 and December 4, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent had violated the Freedom of Information Act in several ways:

           

            a.         that on October 27, 1990 the respondent office was unable to provide him with a copy of a letter he requested because the letter was at the home of the chairman of the respondent;

 

            b.         that the chairman of the respondent had required Bernard Cantillon to submit his request for a hearing at the home of the chairman, rather than at the office of the respondent;

 

            c.         that a hearing held on October 16, 199l was illegally closed and subsequently reopened; and

 

            d.         that it was the policy of the respondent to deliberate in executive session.

 

            3.         It is found that when the complainant went to the respondent's office on October 27, 1991 to obtain a copy of a certain letter, he was told that the letter he was seeking was

 

Docket #90-463                                  Page two

 

in the file of the chairman of the respondent at his home.

 

            4.         It is found that a copy of the letter he was seeking was subsequently provided.

 

            5.         It is found that the chairman had mistakenly taken the letter home with him.

 

            6.         It is concluded that the chairman had accidentally violated the requirement of 1-19a(a), G.S., that records of a public agency must be maintained in the office of the agency during regular business hours.

 

            7.         It is found that this Commission has no jurisdiction over the allegations of the complainant that the chairman improperly required an application for a hearing to be submitted at his home.

 

            8.         It is found that the allegation that the respondent always deliberated in closed session was not sufficiently specific to constitute a claim of violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            9.         It is found that the respondent did, as the complainant alleged, open the hearing on an application for a certificate of zoning compliance, and then close the hearing at 8:23 p.m.; and then subsequently reopen the hearing after interested members of the audience had left.

 

            10.       It is found that this procedure was clearly misleading, and because the meeting agenda required by 1-21, G.S., was not put into evidence at the hearing, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the meeting agenda did fairly apprise the public of the fact that the hearing would be a bifurcated proceeding.

 

            11.       The complainant asked that a civil penalty be imposed.

 

            12.       It is found that under the facts of this case, a civil penalty is not appropriate.

 

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

 

            1.         Henceforth, the respondent shall maintain its records at its office.

 

            2.         Henceforth, the respondent shall create agendas that

 

Docket #90-463                                  Page three

 

inform the public in a clear fashion of the order of its hearings, including whether or not its hearings will be heard in full or considered in two parts.

 

            3.  The respondent shall contact the Commission's staff within 30 days to schedule a workshop on the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 24, 1991.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #90-463                                  Page four

 

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:

Denis O'Sullivan

238 North Street

Watertown, CT 06795

 

Watertown Fire District Zoning Board of Appeals

c/o John H. Cassidy, Jr., Esq.

Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, P.C.

41 Church Street

P.O. Box 2818

Waterbury, CT 06723-2818

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission