FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Michael Vandenbroeck and
Richard Woodburn,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-148
Redding Conservation
Commission,
Respondent April 24, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 20, 1996, at which time the complainants and respondent appeared
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 and filed with this Commission via facsimile
transmission on May 3, 1995, the complainants alleged that in violation of
1-21(a), G.S., the respondent purposely failed to inform the public that
at its April 4, 1995 regular meeting ("April meeting") it would
discuss and vote upon: a) an amendment to a cease and desist order issued to
Costa Stergue on October 18, 1990 ("desist order"), and b) settlement
of Redding Conservation Commission v. Costa Stergue (CV 91 0304061)
("Stergue case").
3. Alleging
a wilful violation, the complainants requested that the Commission declare the
respondent's decision to accept an amended desist order in settlement of the
Stergue case, null and void.
4. It
is found that the complainants in this matter were granted party status in the
Stergue case by virtue of their allegation that their property rights,
including their right to a source of potable water, have been wilfully
interfered with by Mr. Stergue as a result of his alleged illegal diversion of
watercourses and drainage of wetlands without the permits required by law.
Docket #FIC 95-148 Page
2
5. It
is found that the complainants have actively participated in the Stergue case
and settlement discussions relating to the case, where possible.
6. It
is found that the respondent held an April meeting.
7. It
is found that the agenda for the April meeting ("agenda") indicated
that there would be a discussion of the revised planting plan for
"Application 94-09V, Costa Stergue (owner), Gregory White (agent),"
but failed to indicate that there would be any discussion or action taken on
either the desist order or the Stergue case.
8. With
respect to business not included on an agenda for a regular meeting,
1-21(a), G.S., states that "[u]pon an affirmative vote of two-thirds
of the members of a public agency present and voting, any subsequent business
not included in such filed agenda may be considered and acted upon at such
meeting." (Emphasis added.)
9. It
is found that the respondent took no action to add the desist order or the
Stergue case to the agenda.
10. It
is found that during the course of its April meeting the respondent considered
and acted upon the desist order and Stergue case.
11. The
complainants maintain that they would have attended the April meeting had they
known the respondent would consider the desist order and Stergue case and
knowing this the respondent purposely did not include the desist order or the
Stergue case on the agenda.
12. The
respondent concedes that the April meeting agenda was not reflective of the
business discussed or transacted, but claims that there was no deliberate
attempt to subvert or violate the complainants' rights under 1-21(a), G.S.
13. The
respondent further concedes that the amended desist order, which contained as
one of its terms an authorization to stipulate to settle the Stergue case, was
prepared well in advance of the April meeting and then brought to that meeting
by counsel for the respondent.
14. Given
the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that neither the desist
order nor the Stergue case arose subsequent to the preparation of the agenda.
Docket #FIC 95-148 Page
3
15. In
light of the substantial interest of the complainants in the desist order, and
their otherwise active participation in the Stergue case, it is found that the
omission of both of these items from the agenda was not simply an oversight on
the part of the respondent.
16. Upon
the facts of this case, it is concluded that the desist order and the Stergue
case did not constitute "subsequent business" within the meaning of
1-21(a), G.S., and it is therefore concluded that the respondent
improperly considered and acted upon both matters at the April meeting, in
violation of 1-21(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
actions taken by the respondent at the April meeting with respect to the desist
order and the Stergue case are hereby declared null and void.
2. Henceforth
the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the requirements expressly
set forth in 1-21(a), G.S.
3. Within
five days of the date of mailing the notice of final decision in this case, the
respondent shall cause a copy of the Commission's final decision in this case
to be conspicuously posted in the place where its meeting notices and agendas
are posted, for a period of not less than sixty (60) days.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-166 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:
Michael Vandenbroeck and
Richard Woodburn
c/o Nancy Burton, Esq.
147 Cross Highway
Redding Ridge, CT 06876
Redding Conservation
Commission
c/o Michael N. Lavalle, Esq.
850 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission