FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert Fodor,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-103
Milford Sewer Department,
Respondent December 14, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 18, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 filed with this Commission on March 31, 1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by, among other things, improperly conducting its February 1, 1994 regular meeting and by failing to provide to him a transcript of its February 1, 1994 regular meeting.
3. Pursuant to 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., this Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over any non-compliance alleged to have occurred on February 1, 1994 under the facts of this case.
4. It is found that on March 9, 1994, the complainant requested of the respondent a transcript of its February 1, 1994 regular meeting.
5. It is found that on March 9, 1994, the complainant was supplied with the respondent's February 1, 1994 minutes, which the complainant took home with him for review.
6. It is found that at the time of the hearing into this matter, no transcript of the respondent's February 1, 1994 regular meeting ever existed.
7. It is accordingly concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of the FOI Act by failing to provide to the complainant a copy of a transcript from its February 1, 1994 regular meeting.
Docket #FIC 94-103 Page 2
8. The respondent claims that the reason the complainant took an appeal to this Commission is because the complainant seeks a sewer permit. The respondent claims that the complainant's appeal to this Commission is frivolous within the meaning of 1-21i(b)(2), G.S., and requests the imposition of civil penalties against the complainant.
9. It is found that the issue of the availability of a transcript in this case arose due to miscommunications between the complainant and the respondent.
10. It is concluded that the imposition of civil penalties against the complainant pursuant to 1-21i(b)(2), G.S., is unwarranted and inappropriate under the facts of this case.
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 December 14, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-103 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:
ROBERT FODOR
9 Depot Street
Milford, CT 06460
MILFORD SEWER DEPARTMENT
c/o Marilyn J. Lipton, Esq.
Milford City Attorney
110 River Street
Milford, CT 06460
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission