FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Bruce Krupula,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 93-153

 

Paradise Lake District,

 

                                Respondent                          October 27, 1993

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 29, 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 of complaint dated June 1, 1993, and filed with the Commission on June 2, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to comply with paragraph two of the order in the Commission's final decision in Docket #FIC 92-255, Bruce Krupula v. Paradise Lake District, (hereinafter "FIC 92-255").

 

                3.             Specifically, the complainant alleged that the respondent has failed to provide him with notice by mail of each of its regular and special meetings, beginning with the notice for its May 6, 1993 meeting.

 

                4.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the case file, administrative record and decisions in its contested case FIC 92-255.

 

                5.             The respondent claims that it has held only one meeting since the issuance of the Commission's final decision in FIC 92-255, and notice of that meeting which was held on May 6, 1993, was filed with the town clerk on April 26, 1993, and mailed to the complainant on that same date.

 

Docket #FIC 93-153                                     Page 2

 

                6.  The complainant maintains that the only notice of meeting that he received from the respondent was for the May 6, 1993 meeting, however the notice was received by him on or about July 28, 1993, and the postmark on the mailing was July 26, 1993.

 

                7.  It is found that on or about July 26, 1993, the respondent mailed the complainant a copy of the notice of meeting for its May 6, 1993 meeting.

 

                8.             It is also found that there have been no other meetings held by the respondent since the May 6, 1993 meeting.

 

                9.             It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the Commission's order in FIC 92-255.

 

                10.           The Commission declines to issue a civil penalty against the respondent at this time only because it believes and expects that the respondent will mail all future notices of its meetings in a timely manner.

 

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

 

                1.  For a period of one year commencing from the date of mailing of the notice of final decision issued in this case, docket #FIC 93-153, the respondent shall provide the complainant by mail notice of each regular and special meeting which is called, at least seven days prior to the date of the meeting, where practicable.  The complainant shall immediately provide the respondent with his precise mailing address.

 

                2.             In complying with paragraph one of this order the respondent shall mail its meeting notices to the complainant certified mail, return receipt requested.  The respondent shall bear all costs of copying, postage and mailing the meeting notices to the complainant.

 

                3.  Betsy Burgess, the outgoing president for the respondent district, shall immediately notify the interim president, president elect, or person(s) responsible for filing, posting and mailing notice of the respondent's meetings of this final decision and order, and to provide that individual with a copies of the final decisions in FIC 92-255 and this case to facilitate compliance with the Commission's order.

 

Docket #FIC 93-153                                     Page 3

 

                4.             If the duties described in paragraph 3 of this order are still being carried out by Ms. Burgess until her successor is elected, then she is expected to fulfill her obligations as set forth in paragraph 3 of this order immediately upon the election and acceptance of office by her successor.

 

                5.             The Commission notes further, that it is not predisposed to leniency if noncompliance with this order occurs in the future.

 

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

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-153                                     Page 4

 

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:

Mr. Bruce Krupula

317 Drain Street

Hampton, CT 06247

 

Paradise Lake District

c/o Betsy Burgess

Paradise Lake

Brooklyn, CT 06234

 

                                                                              

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission