FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Edward Peruta,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 94-195

 

O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager/Director

of Public Safety and Town of Rocky Hill,

 

                                Respondents                        March 8, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 6, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  It is found that approximately one week prior to June 14, 1994, the complainant requested from the respondents access to certain upcoming arbitration hearings concerning Joseph Corbin scheduled for June 23 and 24, 1994.

 

                3.  It is found that by letter dated June 14, 1994, the respondents denied the complainant's request claiming that Corbin and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers ("IBPO") opposed having a public hearing, and in addition the issue of whether arbitration hearings are open to the public is presently unresolved and before the Connecticut Supreme Court.

 

                4.  Following the June 14 denial, the complainant by letter dated and filed with the Commission on June 15, 1994, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to the arbitration hearings, referred to in paragraph 2, above.

 

                5.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its decision in Docket #FIC 94-9 Edward A. Peruta v. Philip R. Dunn, Chief of Police, Rocky Hill Police Department.

 

                6.  It is found that one arbitration hearing responsive to the complainant's request for access was convened on June 23, 1994.

 

Docket #FIC 94-195                                             Page 2

 

                7.  It is found that the June 23, 1994 hearing, described in paragraph 6, above was adjourned indefinitely almost immediately following its convening.

 

                8.  It is found that the indefinite adjournment of the June 23, 1994 hearing was as a result of an agreement reached among counsel for the IBPO, the respondents and the arbitrator.

 

                9.  It is found that the complainant was present at the June 23, 1994 hearing.

 

                10.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the complainant's rights under the FOI Act because the complainant was given access to the June 23, 1994 hearing.

 

                11.  Consequently, the complainant's requests for civil penalties and to declare the decisions of the respondents null and void are denied.

 

                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.

 

                2.  The Commission takes this opportunity to remind the respondents that pursuant to the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., the meetings of all public agencies shall be open to the public and must be timely noticed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 8, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-195                                             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:

EDWARD PERUTA

38 Parish Road

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

 

O. PAUL SHEW, ROCKY HILL TOWN MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND TOWN OF ROCKY HILL

c/o Donald W. Strickland, Esq.

Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff & Zangari, P.C.

370 Asylum Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                                             

                                                Debra L. Rembowski

                                                Clerk of the Commission