FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Stewart E. Hutchings, Christel Manning and |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-498 |
|
State Traffic Commission, State of Connecticut, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 10, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 14, 2000, at which time the complainants 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 of complaint dated and filed on October 21, 1999, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by :
i) holding an “off the record” secret discussion on September 21, 1999 about the New Haven Galleria at Long Wharf Application for a Certificate of Operation (“Mall Application”);
ii) holding a secret meeting on September 27, 1999 and engaging in discussions about the Mall Application, prior to the publicly noticed meeting to approve the application; and
iii) privately making the approval decision before the publicly noticed meeting on September 27, 1999, as demonstrated by the preparation before the September 27, 1999 meeting, of a document entitled “Evaluation of Comments Presented at the September 21, 1999 STC meeting”
In their complaint, the complainants requested that the Commission declare null and void the respondent’s decision to grant a “Certificate of Operation” to the applicants.
3. Section 1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2)G.S.] provides:
"Meeting" means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any 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.
4. With respect to the allegations as described in paragraph 2i, 2ii and 2iii, above, it is found that no secret discussions or meetings within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2)G.S.], were held by the respondent, concerning the Mall Application as alleged in the complaint. It is also found that no secret approval was made by the respondent concerning the Mall Application as alleged by the complainants.
5. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent 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
May 10, 2000.
_________________________
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:
Stewart E. Hutchings, Christel Manning and
John H.
Isaacs
c/o Steven D.
Ecker, Esq.
Cowdery,
Ecker & Murphy, LLC
750 Main
Street
Hartford, CT
06103
State Traffic Commission, State of Connecticut,
Department of
Transportation
c/o Robert D.
Snook, Esq.
Assistant
Attorney General
55 Elm Street
– 3rd Floor Annex
Hartford, CT
06141-0120
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-498FD/mes/05/15/00