|
FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Sherrie L. Dryburgh, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-207 |
|
Richard Gray, Acting Chairman, Fire Alarm |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December 8, 1999 |
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 4, 1999, 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 §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.]
2. By letter dated April 8, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with a response to an August 10, 1998 letter to the respondents from the Blue Hills Fire Department.
3. It is found that the August 10, 1998 letter described in paragraph 2, above, was written by Chief Gold of the Blue Hills Fire Department concerning an incident whereby a dispatcher of the respondents allegedly incorrectly dispatched such department to a location on August 8, 1998. It is further found that such letter requested a written response.
4. By letter dated April 14, 1999, the respondents informed the complainant that “.. a subsequent verbal conversation between the committee and Chief Gold was deemed satisfactory and Chief Gold no longer required a written response.”
5. By letter dated April 15, 1999, the complainant asked the respondents for the date, time, and place of the “committee” conversation with Chief Gold, and other documentation related to such “meeting.”
6. By letter dated April 22, 1999, the respondents informed the complainant that it was not their practice to keep minutes of informal conversations between committee members, that the respondent Cyprien Cyr communicated directly with Chief Gold and members of the respondent committee agreed with such discussion, and that they do not have the dates of such discussions.
7. By letter dated May 3, 1999, and filed May 4, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by their actions in this matter. The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties.
8. It is found that the respondent Cyprien Cyr is a member of and acting secretary to the respondent committee and that, as such, he typically handles the correspondence of such committee.
9. It is found that, at some point shortly after the respondents received the letter described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, the respondent Cyr was on duty as a dispatcher and telephoned Chief Gold concerning a matter other than the dispatch problem described in paragraph 3, above. It is further found that, during the course of such conversation, Chief Gold and the respondent Cyr also discussed the respondents’ standard dispatching policy. It is also found that, at the conclusion of such conversation, Chief Gold informed the respondent Cyr that he was no longer requesting the written response described in paragraph 3, above, and that the matter should be dropped.
10. It is found that, with respect to the conversation described in paragraph 9, above, the respondent Cyr had not been designated by the respondent committee to pursue the matter of the dispatch problem with Chief Gold. Rather, it is found that such matter came up in the natural course of such conversation and that such conversation resulted in the apparent resolution of the issue.
11. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant questioned the respondent Cyr’s authority to act as described in paragraphs 9 and 10, above. However, it is found that such issue was not raised in the complaint and, moreover, is a matter beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission.
12. It is found that, after the conversation described in paragraph 9, above, the respondent Cyr informed the respondent Gray of such conversation and the fact that Chief Gold no longer requested that the respondent committee take action on his August 10, 1998 letter.
13. Section 1-200(2), defines “meeting” as: “[a]ny communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. "Meeting" shall not include…communication limited to notice of meetings of any public agency or the agendas thereof.”
14. It is found that the conversation described in paragraph 12, above, was a communication limited to informing committee members that Chief Gold was no longer requesting any action with respect to his August 10, 1998 letter and that no meeting was required. It is concluded that the conversation described in paragraph 12, above, was a communication limited to “notice of meetings… or the agendas thereof” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. (formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.), and therefore not a meeting within the definition of such provision.
15. It is also found that the letters described in paragraphs 4 and 6, above, were referring to verbal and informal committee conversations, were imprecise and misleading to the complainant and likely resulted in the filing of this complaint.
16. It is found that at no time did the respondent committee have a meeting within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. (formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.)., concerning either the dispatch in question or Chief Gold’s letter, and therefore, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.
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
December 8, 1999.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Sherrie L. Dryburgh
212 R Duncaster Road
Bloomfield, CT 06002
Richard Gray, Acting Chairman, Fire Alarm Communications Committee, Bloomfield Center Fire District; Daniel Canfield; William Riley; Cyprien Cyr; Michael Leahy, as members, Fire Alarm Communications Committee, Bloomfield Center Fire District; and Fire Alarm Communications Committee, Bloomfield Center Fire District
c/o Atty. Marjorie Wilder
Pullman & Comley, LLC
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103-3702
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-207FD/mrb/
1/10/2000