FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Kathy A. Velky,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-202
Woodbury Inland Wetlands
Agency and Woodbury Town Planner,
Respondents March 27, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 28, 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. By letter
of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on June 19, 1995, the
complainant appealed alleging that the respondent Agency violated the Freedom
of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to comply with its by-laws,
procedures and regulations, and the respondent Town Planner failed to provide
her with access to a copy of the enforcement action letter and bill
(hereinafter "letter" and "bill"), pertaining to an Inland
Wetlands regulation violation concerning Charles Stockwell (hereinafter
"Stockwell matter").
3. It is
concluded that of the violations alleged in the June 19, 1995 complaint,
referred to in paragraph 2, above, this Commission has jurisdiction to address
only the following:
a.
that the respondent Agency considered and acted upon the Stockwell
matter at its May 22, 1995 meeting when such matter was neither on the agenda
nor added to the agenda; and
b.
that the respondent Town Planner failed to provide the complainant with
prompt access to a copy of the letter and bill.
Docket #FIC 95-202 Page 2
4. With
respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 3a., above, it is found
that the respondent Agency held a regular meeting on May 22, 1995.
5. At the
hearing on this matter, the respondent Agency conceded that at the May 22, 1995
meeting, described in paragraph 4, above, it considered and acted upon the
Stockwell matter, which matter was neither on the respondent Agency's May 22,
1995 agenda nor was such matter added to the May 22, 1995 agenda.
6. It is also
found that at its June 12, 1995 regular meeting the respondent Agency, in an
attempt to rectify the May 22, 1995 incorrect procedure, properly added the
Stockwell matter to the June 12, 1995 agenda, and then reconsidered such
matter.
7. It is
concluded that the respondent Agency violated 1-21(a), G.S., when it
considered and acted upon the Stockwell matter at the May 22, 1995 meeting when
such matter was not on the agenda and without the respondent Agency first
obtaining a two-thirds vote of its members to add such matter to the agenda.
8. With
respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 3b., above, it is found
that on June 15 and 16, 1995 the complainant visited the respondent Town
Planner's office and requested a copy
of the letter and bill, described in paragraph 2, above.
9. It is
found that at the time of the complainant's visit on June 15, 1995, described
in paragraph 8, above, the respondent Town Planner was unavailable and Sue
Bartlett, secretary, informed the complainant that the letter had not yet been
completed and that the respondent Town Planner had the bill.
10. It is
found that on June 15 and 16, 1995 the letter had not yet been written,
however, the bill existed and was being kept in the Finance department's office
down the hall from the respondent Town Planner's office.
11. It is
found that on or about June 20, 1995 the complainant told the respondent Town
Planner that he should mail her a copy of the bill along with a copy of the
letter.
12. It is
found that the respondent Town Planner mailed the complainant a copy of the
letter and bill on June 26, 1995, which the complainant received shortly
thereafter.
13. It is
concluded that the respondent Town Planner's provision of access to the bill on
June 26, 1995, eleven days after the request on June 15, 1995, was not prompt
within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 95-202 Page 3
14. It is
therefore concluded that the respondent Town Planner violated the promptness
requirement of 1-19(a), G.S.
15. With
respect to the respondent Town Planner's provision of access to the letter on
June 26, 1995, it is concluded that the respondent Town Planner did not violate
1-19(a), G.S., because such letter did not exist at the date of the June
15 and June 16, 1995 requests, but was written sometime thereafter.
16. The
Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty in this case.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. With
respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 3a., of the findings,
above, and the provision of access to the bill, henceforth, the respondents
shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-21(a),
G.S.
2. The
complaint is dismissed with respect to all of the other allegations raised in
the complaint.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-202 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:
Kathy A. Velky
626 Washington Road
Woodbury, CT 06798
Woodbury Inland Wetlands
Agency and Woodbury Town Planner
c/o Maureen Danehy Cox, Esq.
Carmody & Torrance
P.O. Box 1110
Waterbury, CT 06721-1110
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission