FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by Final
Decision
Raymond R.
Baginski, Sr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 95-107
Southington Town
Council; Southington Conservation Commission; Southington
Inland Wetlands
Commission and Southington Planning and Zoning Commission,
Respondents November 8, 1995
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on October 17, 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 Town Council, Planning and Zoning and
Conservation Commissions are public agencies within the meaning of
1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed on April 10, 1995, the complainant
appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom
of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to send him notices and agendas
of all meetings of the Conservation, Inland Wetland and Planning and Zoning
Commissions.
3. It is found that the complainant made a verbal request to the
Town Planner, followed by a March 10, 1995 written request to the Town Council
that he be provided with meeting notices and agendas of the Conservation,
Inland Wetland and Planning and Zoning Commissions.
4. It is found that no Inland Wetlands Commission exists in the town
of Southington, accordingly, only the respondents Town Council, Planning and
Zoning and Conservation Commissions are proper named respondents in this
appeal.
5. It is found that the respondent Town Council's minutes for March
13, 1995 reflect its acknowledgement of the complainant's request described in
paragraph 3, above, and indicate an assurance that the request would be
complied with.
Docket #FIC
95-107 Page
2
6. It is found that at the direction of the Town Planner certain
notices and agendas of the respondents Planning and Zoning and Conservation
Commissions meetings which were responsive to the complainant's request, were
mailed to the complainant free of charge prior to April 28, 1995.
7. It is found that by letter dated April 28, 1995 the Town Planner
informed the complainant of his intent to charge a fee of $36.50 per year to
defray copying and mailing expenses for providing the requested notices and
agendas; that the complainant could obtain copies of such notices and agendas
in person at a cost of twenty-five cents per page; and that if prepayment was
not received by May 12, 1995 he would assume the complainant no longer had an
interest in obtaining the requested notices and agendas.
8. Section 1-15(a), G.S., allows municipal public agencies to charge
a copying fee not exceeding fifty cents per page.
9. Section 1-15(c), G.S., allows public agencies to require
prepayment of any fee estimated to be ten dollars or more.
10. Section 1-21c, G.S.,
provides in relevant part:
The 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.
[Emphasis added].
11. It is found that the $36.50 per year fee, described in paragraph
7, above, is reasonable based on the Town Planner's estimated cost of providing
the complainant with the requested agendas and notices.
12. Further, it is found that the complainant does not claim that he
is indigent.
13. It is therefore concluded that the respondents Town Council,
Planning and Zoning and Conservation Commissions did not violate the
complainant's rights under the FOI Act, by charging a fee and requiring
prepayment of such fee.
Docket #FIC
95-107 Page 3
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 suggest to the
complainant that in the spirit of co-operation, and in light of his concern
that he is unaware of exactly when agendas and notices are available in the town
clerk's office, that he might consider telephoning the town clerk's office
ahead of his visit to determine that the agendas and notices are in fact in the
town clerk's office.
Approved by
Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
November 8, 1995.
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC
95-107 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:
Raymond R.
Baginski, Sr.
26 Salem Way
Southington, CT
06489
Southington Town
Council, Southington Conservation Commission, Southington Inland Wetlands
Commission and Southington Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o John T.
Nugent, Esq.
97 North Main
Street
Southington, CT
06489
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission