FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Thane Grauel and New Haven Advocate,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-3

 

Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and Woodbridge

Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee,

 

                        Respondents                 June 8, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 27, 1994, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the hearing, the caption of this case was corrected to read Thane Grauel and New Haven Advocate v. Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee.

            Docket #FIC 93-2 Alfred M. Marzullo and Marzullo Associates v. Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee was consolidated with the above-captioned case for purpose of hearing.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission ("P & Z Commission") is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint dated December 30, 1993 and filed with the Commission on January 5, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by:

 

                        a.  secretly creating a sub-committee, which had met at unnoticed times, to address the issue of the town of Woodbridge's ("town") affordable housing regulations;

 

                        b.  failing to maintain records of notices, agendas or minutes of meetings of the

 

Docket # FIC 94-3                              Page 2

 

                        sub-committee, described in paragraph 2a., above; and

 

                        c.  failing to make available as of December 7, 1993, the November 1, 1993 minutes of the respondent P & Z Commission.

 

            3.  The complainants requested that the Commission issue civil penalties against the respondents.

 

            4.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2a. and 2b. above, it is found that the respondent P & Z Commission held a meeting on November 15, 1993 at which time it discussed the issue of amending the town's zoning regulations to provide for affordable housing.

 

            5.  It is also found that at the November 15, 1993 meeting, described in paragraph 4, above, three members of the respondent P & Z Commission volunteered to review the affordable housing regulations of other towns with the purpose of reporting their findings to the respondent P & Z Commission, and with the expectation that those findings would provide information to the respondent P & Z Commission to assist in the revision of the town's zoning regulations.

 

            6.  The respondent P & Z Commission contends that no sub-commitee exists because it did not create one and further, that the three volunteers, described in paragraph 5, above,  comprise less than a quorum of the respondent P & Z Commission's members.

 

            7.  It is found that at the respondent's December 20, 1993 meeting one of the volunteers, described in paragraph 5, above, reported on the update of the zoning regulations.

 

            8.  It is found that the three members of the respondent P & Z Commission who volunteered to review the town's zoning regulations comprise a committee of the respondent P & Z Commission, because these members undertook to perform a duty of the respondent P & Z Commission with the expectation that they were acting on behalf of the respondent P & Z Commission.  Further, once they took it upon themselves to perform the zoning regulations review, they were then committed with the management of such review.

 

            9.  It is concluded that the committee of the respondent P & Z Commission described in paragraph 8, above, is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            10.  Section 1-18a(b), G.S., defines a meeting as:

 

Docket # FIC 94-3                              Page 3

 

                        any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

 

            10.  It is found that the complainants failed to prove that the committee of the respondent P & Z Commission, described in paragraphs 8 and 9 above, convened meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., at unnoticed times.

 

            11.  It is therefore concluded that in the absence of evidence that the committee, as described in paragraphs 8 and 9, above, convened meetings at unnoticed times, the complainants have failed to prove that the respondents violated any of their rights under the FOI Act.

 

            12.  Section 1-21(a), G.S., requires that minutes be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.

 

            13.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c. above, it is found that as of December 7, 1993 the respondent failed to make available the minutes of its November 1, 1993.

 

            14.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent P & Z Commission violated the complainants rights under the FOI Act as set forth in 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            15.  The Commission in its discretion declines to issue civil penalties.

 

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

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed with respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b. of the findings, above.

 

Docket # FIC 94-3                                  Page 4

 

            2.  With respect to the allegations described paragraph in 2a., concerning creation of the sub-committee and 2c. of the findings, above, the respondent P and Z Commission shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 8, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket # FIC 94-3                                     Page 5

 

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. Thane Grauel

New Haven Advocate

1 Long Wharf Drive

New Haven, CT 06511

 

Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission and

Woodbridge Planning and Zoning Commission Sub-Committee

c/o Alice S. Miskimin, Esq.

Jacobs, Grudbert, Belt & Dow

350 Orange Street

P.O. Box 606

New Haven, CT 06503

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission