FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Thomas J. Doyle, Sr. and Fresh Air Committee,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-203

 

Bristol Inland Wetlands Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  January 27, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 14, 1992, 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.  By letter dated and postmarked June 16, 1992, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent commission violated the Freedom of Information Act by:

 

                        a.   failing to make available the minutes            

                             of its April 22, 1992 meeting as of

                             May 18, 1992;

 

                        b.   failing to place in a separate file

                             within forty-eight hours the votes of

                             each of its members taken at its May 18,

                             1992 meeting; and

 

                        c.   failing to make available the minutes            

                             of its May 18, 1992 meeting as of June

                             12, 1992.

 

            3.  In addition, the complainants requested that the Commission declare null and void the vote on "application #548, McCutcheon Concrete", taken at the respondent commission's May 18, 1992 meeting.

 

Docket #FIC 92-203                           Page 2

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent commission held a meeting on April 20, 1992, not on April 22, 1992, as set forth in the complaint herein.

 

            5.  The respondent commission claims that although the minutes of its April 20, 1992 and May 18, 1992 meetings were not available within seven days of their respective meetings, nonetheless a secretary's "long-hand" notes and tape recording of the meetings were available to the public from the time of the meetings to which they refer.

 

            6.  Section 1-21(a), G. S., provides in relevant part:

 

                        ....[M]inutes shall be available for public

                        inspection within seven days of the session

                        to which they refer....

 

            7.  It is found that the notes and tape recordings described in paragraph 5 of the findings, above, do not substitute for the requirement for written minutes set forth in 1-21(a), G. S.

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent commission failed to make available within seven days minutes of its April 20, 1992 and May 18, 1992 meetings as required by 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            9.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that the complainants have not alleged an act that would constitute a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            10.  The Commission declines to declare null and void the vote on "application #548", referred to in paragraph 3 of the findings, above.

 

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

 

            1.  Henceforth the respondent commission shall strictly comply with the minutes requirements set forth in 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            2.  The Commission reminds the respondent commission that votes taken at a meeting must be recorded and made available to the public within forty-eight hours of the meeting at which they were taken.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 27, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-203                           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:

Thomas J. Doyle, Sr.

Fresh Air Committee

181 Sherwood Road

Bristol, CT 06010

 

Bristol Inland Wetlands Commission

c/o Ann Baldwin

Assistant Corporation Counsel

111 North Main Street

Bristol, CT 06010

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission