FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Michael Egan,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-233

 

Ansonia Planning and Zoning Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  March 9, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 17, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the hearing into this matter, the Commission marked for identification purposes only a videotape offered by the complainant.  Upon its own motion, this Commission herein designates the videotape as a full exhibit.

 

            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 filed with this Commission on September 2, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by: failing to have minutes and transcripts of its August 12, 1993 meeting available by August 30, 1993; excluding members of the public from its meeting of August 30, 1993; and failing to make certain revised maps available to the public at that time.  The complainant also alleged that city officials and the public were not permitted to speak.  The complainant requested that this Commission declare the respondent's meeting null and void and order the respondent to conduct a new public hearing.

 

            3.  It is found that on August 12, 1993, the respondent conducted a special meeting and that on August 30, 1993, it conducted a regular meeting.

 

            4.  At the hearing into this matter, the respondent conceded that the minutes of its August 12, 1993 special meeting were not available for public inspection within the seven day period mandated by 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            5.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., relating to the availability of minutes.

 

Docket #FIC 93-233                           Page 2

 

            6.  It is found that at the August 30, 1993 meeting, the respondent did not anticipate a crowd as large as the one that in fact appeared to attend the meeting.

 

            7.  It is also found that all thirty-seven seats in the room where the August 30 meeting was held were taken and that additional people were also standing.

 

            8.  Although testimony on behalf of the complainant indicated that the relatively small size of the August 30 meeting room essentially denied members of the public access to that meeting, a viewing of the above-referenced videotape resolves the issue of denial of public access in favor of the respondent.

 

            9.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondent is not in violation of the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., with respect to public access to meetings under the facts of this case.

 

            10.  This Commission notes that the FOI Act does not require public agencies to provide for public participation or comment at its public meetings.

 

            11.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondent is not in violation of any provision of the FOI Act with respect to the claim that it failed to permit city officials and members of the public to speak at the meeting in question.

 

            12.  Finally, it is found that no request for revised maps was made and denied under the facts of this case.

 

            13.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondent is not in violation of the provisions of the FOI Act with respect to the issue of revised maps.

 

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

 

            1.  The respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the minutes requirements under the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 9, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-233                           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:

Mr. Michael Egan

103 Benz Street

Ansonia, CT 06401

 

Ansonia Planning and Zoning Commission

c/o Edward J. Androski, Esq.

P.O. Box 656

Ansonia, CT 06401

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission