FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL DECISION
Richard M. Gittings and
Seymour Police Union Local #564
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 94-145
Seymour Board of Police
Commissioners
Respondent February 22, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on November 15, 1994, at which time the complainants 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 May 6, 1994 and filed with the Commission on May 9, 1994,
the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent
violated the Freedom of Information("FOI") Act by:
a.
improperly discussing the complainant Gittings in an executive session
held on March 28, 1994, without prior notice to Gittings;
b.
improperly convening an unnoticed meeting on March 28, 1994 immediately
following the conclusion of the respondent's scheduled March 28, 1994 special
meeting; and
c.
denying the complainants access to records pertaining to the March 28,
1994 meeting.
3. Section
1-21i(b), G.S., provides that in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, a
notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the
appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.
Docket #FIC 94-145 Page 2
4. It is
found that the respondent held a special meeting on March 28, 1994 during which
the respondent went into excutive session to discuss a personnel matter.
5. It is
found that the complainants received notice in fact approximately three to four
days following the March 28, 1994 meeting that the respondent convened the
executive session on March 28, 1994 and further that the complainant Gittings
may have been the subject of a discussion at such executive session
6. It is also
found that the complainants received notice in fact on the night of March 28,
1994 that certain members of the respondent may have convened an unnoticed
meeting following the adjournment of the March 28, 1994 special meeting,
described in paragraph 4, above.
7. It is
therefore concluded that with respect to the allegations described in
paragraphs 2a. and 2b., above, the complainants' notice of appeal was not filed
within the required thirty day period, and therefore the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to address those portions of the appeal.
8. With
respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c., above, it is found that
the complainants by letter dated April 14, 1994 requested from the respondent
copies of all records pertaining to the March 28, 1994 special meeting,
described in paragraph 4, above.
9. It is
found that the respondent provided the complainants with access to the agenda
and minutes of the March 28, 1994 special meeting.
10. However,
the complainants contend that the respondent has not provided them with access
to all existing records pertaining to the March 28 meeting and is withholding
certain other records created by the respondent pertaining to the executive
session held during the March 28 meeting.
11. Based on
the testimony of the respondent at the hearing, it is found that a document
submitted to the Commission and marked as Exhibit "C" exists, which
was not provided to the complainants.
12. It is
concluded that the document described in paragraph 11, above, is a public
record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
13. It is
therefore concluded that the respondent violated the complainants' rights by
failing to provide them with access to all existing records which they
requested.
Docket #FIC 94-145 Page 3
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondent shall immediately provide the complainants with access to all
existing records concerning its March 28, 1994 meeting not already provided to
the complainants, and also with a notarized affidavit attesting that all such
documents have been provided and that no other documents requested exist.
2. The complaint
is dismissed with respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2a. and 2b.
of the findings, above.
3.
Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of
the FOI Act.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 94-145 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:
RICHARD M. GITTINGS
11 Glen Circle
Seymour, CT 06483
SEYMOUR POLICE UNION LOCAL
#564
c/o Det. Bailey Cook
4 Wakeley Street
Seymour, CT 06483
SEYMOUR BOARD OF POLICE
COMMISSIONERS
c/o Colleen D. Fries, Esq.
Bai, Pollock & Dunnigan,
P.C.
P.O. Box 1978
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission