FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Clyde A. Selner,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-58
Berlin Inland Wetlands and
Watercourses Commission,
Respondent September 27, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on June 19, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC
94-403, Clyde A. Selner v. Berlin Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission
was consolidated for hearing with this case.
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 March 7, 1995 and filed with the Commission on March 13,
1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent
violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to provide
him with proper notice of its meetings and failing to provide him with copies
of certain "staff memos" prepared in connection with the respondent's
meetings, pursuant to 1-21c and 1-15, G.S.
3. It is
found that the complainant by letter dated January 1, 1995 requested that the
respondent mail to him copies of the respondent's meeting "agendas"
and "staff memos" prior to its meetings.
4. It is
found that the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of its meeting
agendas for January and February, 1995 and a copy of its 1995 schedule of
regular meetings.
5. The issues
before the Commission are whether 1-21c, G.S., rquires the respondent to
include a copy of its meeting agendas and all other records prepared in connection
with its meetings, including "staff memos" when providing notice of
its
Docket #FIC 95-58 Page 2
meetings to the complainant,
and whether the respondent may require the complainant to prepay for the cost
of copies of records being provided.
6. The
Commission takes administrative notice of its record and decisions in contested
cases docket #sFIC 93-250, Clyde A. Selner v. Berlin Planning Commission and
Berlin Executive Board and FIC 93-62, Clyde A. Selner v. Berlin Inland Wetlands
and Watercourses Commission.
7. Section
1-21c, G.S., provides in relevant part:
[T]he public agency shall, where
practicable, give notice by mail of each regular meeting, and of any special
meeting which is called, at least one week prior to the date set for the
meeting, to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with
such body, except that such body may give such notice as it deems practical of
special meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the meeting....Such
public agency may establish a reasonable charge for sending such notice based
on the estimated cost of providing such service.
8. It is
found that nothing in 1-21c, G.S., requires a public agency to include a
copy of its meeting agenda and all other materials prepared in connection with
its meetings, including "staff memos", when providing notice to a
person who has filed a written request under 1-21c, G.S.
9. It is
found that the respondent by providing the complainant with a copy of its 1995
schedule of regular meetings did not violate 1-21c, G.S.
10. Futher,
it is found that the respondent informed the complainant on March 23, 1995 that
he would be provided with notice of any special meetings which may occur in
1995.
11. It is
therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21c, G.S.
12. The
complainant also contends that the respondent violated 1-15, G.S., when it
failed to provide him with copies of "staff memos" prepared in
connection with its meetings.
13. However,
it is found that the respondent offered to provide the complainant with copies
of all "staff memos" and other meeting materials upon prepayment of
the cost for such copies, which the complainant has refused to do.
Docket #FIC 95-58 Page 3
14. Since
1-15(c), G.S., allows the respondent to require prepayment of costs of ten
dollars ($10.00) or more, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate
1-15, G.S., when it required prepayment of the cost for copies estimated
to be ten dollars ($10.00) or more.
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 September 27, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-58 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:
Mr. Clyde A. Selner
32 Edgerly Street
Kensington, CT 06037
Berlin Inland Wetlands and
Watercourses Commission
c/o Stephen J. Anderson, Esq.
Berlin Office of the
Corporation Counsel
136 West Main Street
P.O. Box 2950
New Britain, CT 06050
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission