FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Edward E. Shatas,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-65
Meriden Economic Development, Housing and Zoning Committee,
Respondent August 28, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 5, 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 letter filed with this Commission on March 15, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent's notice of its March 13 special meeting was defective for its failure to specifically set forth the business to be discussed as required by 1-21(a), G.S.
3. It is found that the notice of the respondent's March 13 special meeting identified the business to be conducted simply as "to consider the agenda of the February 27, 1991 meeting."
4. It is also found that no agenda for February 27, 1991 was attached to the special meeting notice in issue.
5. The respondent claims that: 1) the complainant should have understood the notice identified in paragraph 3, above, to mean that the items under discussion at the respondent's February 27, 1991 regular meeting would be the topics for discussion at its March 13 special meeting; and 2) it would have taken little effort on the complainant's part to ask the city clerk or the secretary of the city council what was indeed on the February 27 agenda.
Docket #FIC 91-65 Page 2
6. At the hearing, the respondent also requested the imposition of civil penalties against the complainant on the basis that the complainant could have made the effort to find out what was on the February 27, 1991 agenda and that the meritless complaint was made solely to harass the respondent.
7. It is found that no evidence was presented to indicate that the complainant's appeal was filed solely (or in part) to harass the respondent.
8. The Commission also notes that nowhere in the FOI Act has the legislature provided that an agency's attempt to incorporate information by reference obligates the public to seek information omitted from a notice of a special meeting.
9. It is concluded that the notice identified in paragraph 3, above, does not specify the business to be transacted by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent has violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached.
1. The respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
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 91-65 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:
EDWARD E. SHATAS
89 Glenview Road
Meriden, CT 06450
CHRISTOPHER P. HANKINS, ESQ.
Department of Law
142 East Main Street
Meriden, CT 06450
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission