FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Robert F. Jahn,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-174

Brian W. Armet, Chairman, Water
Pollution Control Authority, Town
of Cromwell; and Water Pollution
Control Authority, Town of Cromwell,

 

 

Respondents

August 8, 2001

 

 

 

 

This matter was heard as a contested case on May 7, 2001, 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.

 

2.  By letter dated March 26, 2001, and filed with the Commission on March 27, 2001, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to provide the public with adequate notice of business to be transacted at the February 28, 2001 special meeting of the respondent authority.  The complainant asked that the respondents be reprimanded and be assessed a civil penalty. 

 

3.  Section 1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

Notice of each special meeting of every public agency…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…clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state….The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency….

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent authority held a special meeting on February 28, 2001 [hereinafter “the meeting”], and that the notice for the meeting was timely filed with the Cromwell town clerk on February 19, 2001. 

 

5.  It is found that the notice of the meeting included, among other items, the following item:

 

“Workshop for 2001 Assessment & Usage Budgets.” 

 

            6.  It is found that, at the meeting, the respondents reviewed sewer usage budget line items; discussed the future release of $50,000 for flow meters expenditure; reviewed the proposed sewer usage account balance sheet; and estimated expenditures and user charges.  It is also found that the respondents voted to recommend a proposed increase of the user fee to $125 for the coming year; reviewed the sewer assessment account balance sheet; estimated expenditures; and voted on the proposed sewer assessment account balance sheet.

 

7.  It is found that, on March 21, 2001, the respondents held a special meeting/public hearing, during which the public, including the complainant, was allowed comment on the proposed sewer usage budget and proposed sewer assessment budget.  It is also found that, at such time, the respondents voted to approve the sewer division usage budget, the sewer division assessment budget, and the setting of the sewer usage charge at $125. 

 

8.  It is found that the item described in paragraph  5, above, fairly apprised the public of the business to be transacted at the meeting.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

9.  The Commission notes, however, that the minutes of the meeting are misleading, in that they indicate that the respondents increased the user fee to $125 during the meeting, rather than voted to recommend such an increase at the March public hearing.  It is found that such error likely caused confusion and may have led the complainant to file the complaint herein. 

 

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 respondents shall forthwith amend the minutes of the February 28, 2001 meeting to accurately reflect the action taken with respect to the $125 increase described in paragraphs 6 and 9 of the findings, above.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 8, 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:

 

Robert F. Jahn

3 Woodside Road

Cromwell, CT 06416

 

Brian W. Armet, Chairman, Water

Pollution Control Authority, Town

of Cromwell; and Water Pollution

Control Authority, Town of Cromwell

c/o Jayme E. Stamper, Esq.

Rome McGuigan Sabanosh, PC

One State Street

Hartford, CT 06103-3101

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-174/FD/paj/08/13/2001