FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Bruce Krupula,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-255
Paradise Lake District,
Respondent March 24, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 11, 1993, at which time the complainant appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent, although fully aware of the date and time of the proceeding, failed to appear at the hearing.
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 of complaint dated July 27, 1992 and filed on August 3, 1992, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to post notice of a special meeting held on or about July 17, 1992.
3. It is found that on or about July 16, 1992, the respondent held a special meeting to which the Brooklyn First Selectman was invited.
4. It is found that in the past the respondent has posted notice of its meetings on a tree located near its entrance.
5. It is found that such posting by the respondent is not in compliance with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., which in relevant part require that the notice of a special meeting of a public agency be filed not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting "...by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the office of the clerk of each municipal member for any multitown district or agency."
Docket #FIC 92-255 Page 2
6. It is concluded that the respondent violated the notice provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
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 strictly comply with the meeting and notice requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
2. The respondent shall for a period of one year commencing from the date of mailing the notice of final decision in this case, provide the complainant with notice by mail of each regular and special meeting which is called, at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting, where practicable. The respondent shall bear the cost of copying and mailing the notices to the complainant.
3. The Commission reminds the respondent that non-compliance with a Commission order is actionable by either referring such non-compliance to the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution in accordance with 1-21k, G.S., or by compelling the attendance of the respondent before the Commission to show cause why sanctions should not be levied against it in accordance with 1-21i(b), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 24, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-255 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:
Bruce Krupula
317 Drain Street
Hampton, CT 06247
Paradise Lake District
c/o Betsy Burgess
Paradise Lake
Brooklyn, CT 06234
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission