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 92-275

Watertown Fire District, Zoning Board of Appeals,

Respondent April 28, 1993

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 10, 1993, 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 dated August 14, 1992 and filed August 17, 1992 the complainant appealed to the Commission and alleged that on July 22, 1992 during a meeting of this Commission, he learned for the first time that the respondent had considered whether to file a sanctions motion in the Connecticut Appellate Court in July 1991; and thereafter upon a review of the respondent's meeting minutes, learned that the respondent must have considered the matter outside the context of a public meeting in violation of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.

3. It is found that on July 9, 1991 counsel for the Watertown Fire District (hereinafter "WFD") filed a motion for sanctions (hereinafter "sanctions motion") against the plaintiffs in Dobronte et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Watertown Fire District (hereinafter "Dobronte matter"), on behalf of the respondent.

4. The respondent claims that the decision to file a sanctions motion was an administrative decision that did not require a formal vote of the respondent since the district

Docket #FIC 92-275 Page 2

committee, as the governing body of the WFD, would approve the expenditure of funds necessary to proceed with the sanctions motion.

5. It is found that the members of the respondent did not discuss whether to file the sanctions motion in the Dobronte matter and were never advised either by their counsel or the superintendent of the WFD that the sanctions motion would be filed on behalf of the respondent.

6. It is also found that the members of the respondent did not vote or otherwise act outside the context of a public meeting with regard to the filing of the sanctions motion; and it is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act in this regard.

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 April 28, 1993.

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 92-275 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:

Denis O'Sullivan

238 North Street

Watertown, CT 06795

Watertown Fire District Zoning Board of Appeals

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

Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, P.C.

P.O. Box 2818

41 Church Street

Waterbury, CT 06723-2818

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission