FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket # FIC 2000-239 |
|
|
Nelson DeFreitas, Chairman, Police Commission, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
February 14, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 15, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2000-235; Maureen Fama v. Nelson DeFreitas, Chairman, Police Commission, Borough of Naugatuck; Ronald Gallant; Annette Woodfield; William Rado; George Errico; Carlos Batista, as members, Police Commission, Borough of Naugatuck; and Police Commission, Borough of Naugatuck [hereinafter “Docket #FIC2000-235”].
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in Docket #FIC 2000-235.
2. The respondent commission is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
3. By letter dated May 3, 2000, and filed with the Commission on May 12, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by holding a meeting of the respondent commission on January 28, 1997, without proper notice. The complainant alleged that such meeting was discussed at an August 11, 1997, police commission hearing. The complainant also alleged that a meeting of the respondent commission was conducted during October, 1996, without proper notice. The complainant alleged that an individual testified to such fact at a State Board of Mediation and Arbitration meeting on December 2, 1999. The complainant also alleged that the respondents failed to file minutes of such meetings with the Naugatuck Borough Clerk, or to file any paper work with such clerk. The complainant requested that the actions of the respondent commission taken at such alleged meetings be declared null and void and that civil penalties be assessed against the named respondents.
4. It is concluded that the allegation with respect to the failure to file “paper work”, as described in paragraph 3, above, does not constitute conduct that would violate the FOI Act. Accordingly, such allegation shall not be addressed herein.
5. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
…The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, which minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer….Notice of each special meeting of every public agency, except for the General Assembly, either house thereof or any committee thereof, shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the office of the Secretary of the State for any such public agency of the state, in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state and in the office of the clerk of each municipal member for any multitown district or agency….
6. Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the [FOI] Act may appeal therefrom to the [FOI] Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.
(Emphasis added).
7. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that he became aware of the alleged notice deficiencies described in paragraph 3, above, shortly before filing the complaint herein and that, therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction over such allegations.
8. It is concluded that, pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S., it is the date at which a complainant receives notice in fact that a meeting is held, which controls the jurisdictional issue.
9. It is found that the complainant received notice in fact of the alleged meetings described in paragraph 3, above, on August 11, 1997, and December 2, 1999, respectively.
10. The complaint in this matter was filed on May 12, 2000. Since the complaint was filed more than thirty days from the dates on which the complainant received notice in fact of the allegedly unnoticed meetings described in paragraph 3, above, the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations that such meetings were not noticed properly.
11. With respect to the allegation that the respondents failed to file minutes of the alleged October, 1996 meeting, it is concluded that the complainant failed to prove that he requested such minutes and was denied access to them by the respondents within thirty days of the filing of the complaint. Accordingly, such allegation shall not be addressed herein.
12. With respect to the allegation that the respondents failed to file minutes of the alleged January 28, 1997 meeting with the Naugatuck Borough Clerk, §1-210(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part that:
…Each such agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located or of the Secretary of the State, as the case may be….
13. It is concluded that, pursuant to §1-210(a), G.S., there is no requirement to file minutes with the clerk, unless the respondent commission does not have a regular office or place of business.
14. It is found that the respondent commission keeps a regular office or place of business within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., at the Naugatuck police department.
15. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by failing to file the minutes of the January 28, 1997, meeting described in paragraph 3, above, with the Naugatuck Borough Clerk.
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 complainant is advised that, if the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, after such person has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.
3. The complainant is advised that use of the Commission’s ombudsman program can often avoid the need for costly and time-consuming administrative hearings.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Michael Daubert
23 Clearview Drive
Sandy Hook, CT 06482
Nelson Defreitas,
Chairman, Police
Commission, Borough
of Naugatuck;
Ronald Gallant,
Annette Woodfield,
William Rado,
George Errico, Carlos
Batista, as
Members, Police Commission,
Borough of
Naugatuck; and Police
Commission, Borough of Naugatuck,
c/o M. Leonard Caine III, Esq.
35 Porter Avenue
Naugatuck, CT 06770
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-239/FD/paj/02/16/2001