FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Barbara Packwood and Bernard Gehan,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 93-36
Norwalk Zoning Board of Appeals,
Respondent September 8, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 11, 1993, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case was consolidated for hearing with contested case docket #FIC 93-67.
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 February 8, 1993, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act in the following ways: a) it failed to file minutes and records of votes within the statutorily required period after a meeting; b) it failed to properly notify two adjoining landowners (the complainants) of its meeting and hearing on January 14, 1993; and c) it failed to provide to the complainants notice of any executive sessions.
3. At the hearing into this matter, the complainants withdrew their allegation identified in paragraph 2a), above.
4. At the hearing into this matter, the complainants also claimed that 1-21c G.S., concerning the mailing of notice of meetings to persons filing written requests, was violated by the respondent.
5. It is found that at no times applicable under the facts of this case did the complainants file a written request for notice by mail of each regular meeting and any special meeting with the respondent.
6. It is accordingly concluded that under the facts of this case the respondent is not in violation of the provisions of 1-21c, G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-36 Page 2
7. The Commission finds no evidence in this case of any improper executive session(s) conducted by the respondent.
8. The complainants also claim essentially that the Freedom of Information Commission is charged with the enforcement of all state statutes concerning the notice obligations of public agencies. Specifically, the complainants claim that 8-7, G.S., guarantees the complainants the right to receive particular notice from the respondent due to their status as adjacent landowners.
9. The complainants assertion identified in paragraph 8, above, fails to state a claim for relief under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. It is accordingly concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent is not in violation of its provisions.
10. In its post-hearing brief, the respondent requested that this Commission levy a civil penalty against the complainants under the provisions of 1-21i, G.S., which action this Commission in its discretion declines to take.
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 September 8, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-36 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:
Barbara Packwood and Bernard Gehan
c/o Atty. James J. Farrell
8 Elm Street
Norwalk, CT 06850
Norwalk Zoning Board of Appeals
c/o Atty. Peter J. Strassberger
Asst. Corp. Counsel
P. O. Box 798
Norwalk, CT 06856
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission