FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Barbara Zanowiak, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-676 |
|
|
Inland Wetlands Commission, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
May 9, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 24, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated and filed on December 29, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by excluding her from a December 9, 2000, “inspection of the site of regulated activities associated with the proposed Regency Woods development” [hereinafter “the site inspection”].
3. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part that: “[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”
4. Section 1-200(2), G.S., defines “meeting” to include:
“…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….”
5. It is found that the respondent filed notice of the site inspection with the Seymour Town Clerk by letter dated December 4, 2000. It is further found that the purpose of the site inspection was to review the proposed development site for inland-wetlands issues.
6. It is found that the complainant and several other individuals arrived at the time and place specified in the notice described in paragraph 5, above, for the purpose of attending the site inspection, but that such individuals were prevented from so attending the site inspection by the developer of the property at issue, who acted under instructions from the property owner.
7. It is found that, at the start of the site inspection, the members of the respondent commission realized that the developer had prevented the complainant and others from attending the inspection, and that, at such time and by consensus, such members split into three groups, which groups consisted of no more than two members of the respondent commission who toured the site with employees of the developer described in paragraph 6, above. It is also found that the three groups conducted separate inspections and did not communicate with each other.
8. It is found that the respondent commission is comprised of five members and that two members do not constitute a quorum thereof. It is also found that, faced with a difficult situation, the respondent attempted to mitigate the harm by dividing into three groups to avoid a quorum and thereby avoid conducting a meeting. It is also found that such attempt was a genuine endeavor to comply with the FOI Act, rather than a dishonest effort to skirt the provisions of such law.
9. Nevertheless, it is found that all members of the respondent attended the site inspection, which lasted approximately one hour and forty-five minutes, and conducted their review of the site.
10. It is therefore concluded that the respondents’ collective decision to divide into groups of less than a quorum constituted the establishment of three ad hoc committees of the respondent, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. See §1-200(1), G.S., (defining “public agency” to include “…any committee of, or created by, any …[public] agency….”)
11. Consequently, it is further concluded that the site inspection constituted a “meeting” of each of the ad hoc committees of the respondent, and that the respondent violated the FOI Act by proceeding with the inspection when it became aware of the developer’s actions in denying the complainant the right to attend such inspection.
12. It is further found that the respondent scheduled a second site inspection for March, 2001, and that it made arrangements with the developer and property owner for the public to attend such inspection, and further, that the respondent specifically notified the complainant of such inspection by letter postmarked January 16, 2001.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of §1-225(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 9, 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:
Barbara Zanowiak
104 Bungay Road
Seymour, CT 06483
Inland Wetlands Commission
Town of Seymour
c/o Robert Nastri, Jr., Esq.
Tinley, Nastri, Renehan & Dost LLP
60 North Main Street, 2nd floor
Waterbury, CT 06702
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-676/FD/paj/05/14/2001