FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Marvin Weiss,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-26
Woodlake Municipal Tax District,
Respondent August 28, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 4, 1991 and April 25, 1991, at which times 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 letter filed with this Commission on January 30, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act ("FOI Act") on January 10, 1991 by discussing a matter not appearing on the agenda of its district meeting and by having failed to post notice of its January 10 special meeting at the town clerk's office at least twenty-four hours in advance.
3. It is found that by notice dated December 5, 1990, the respondent posted notices of its 1991 regular meetings with the town clerk of Woodbury although the respondent was not certain that it was required to do so.
4. It is also found that the respondent routinely posts notices of its meetings at the main entrance of its tax district office, at its swimming pool area, and at the main entrance to its upstairs clubhouse.
5. It is found that on January 10, 1991, the respondent conducted a regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. and a special meeting immediately following its regular meeting. The occurrence of this special meeting was noted on the agenda for the 7:30 p.m. regular meeting.
6. It is found that the respondent is a political subdivision of the state and pursuant of 1-21(a), G.S., files notices of its meetings with the clerk of this subdivision.
Docket #FIC 91-26 page 2
7. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21(a), G.S., in the filing of its January 10, 1991 special meeting.
8. It is also found that the respondent did not take up items of new business at its January 10, 1991 regular meeting.
9. It is accordingly concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S. by failing to vote to take up an item of new business at its regular meeting of January 10, 1991.
10. After the April 4 and April 25 hearings, the complainant filed a written motion to reopen the hearing because his summary period was limited to two minutes, and he claimed to lack sufficient time to introduce evidence.
11. The respondent filed an objection to this motion on the basis that the complainant had a full opportunity to introduce evidence when presenting his case and cross-examining witnesses.
12. The complainant's motion to reopen is hereby denied.
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.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-26 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:
Marvin Weiss
Seven Upper Commons
Woodbury, CT 06798
Joseph P. Faxi, Esq.
Robinson & Cole
One Commercial Plaza
Hartford, CT 06103
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission