FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
| Robert LeBlanc, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-363 | |
|
Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of Watertown; and Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Watertown |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
March 13, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 15, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing, the hearing officer modified the case caption to reflect the correct title of the Zoning Enforcement Officer, Town of Watertown.
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. It is found that by letter dated June 27, 2001, the
complainant made the following inquiry to the respondent zoning officer:
“During
the week of June 18-22, 2001, I perused the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)
minutes at your office to ascertain when the enclosed letter, from the
Chairman of the ZBA dated 3/28/01, was discussed and signed.
The desired information was not found.
Would you please inform me as to the date the ZBA meeting was held to
discuss and sign the subject letter?”
3. By letter filed with this Commission on July 30, 2001, the
complainant appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by:
a) failing to
respond to his request as described in
paragraph 2, above; and
b) conducting an
unannounced meeting during which the
chairman of the respondent board and five other members signed the
March 28, 2001 letter described in paragraph 2, above.
4. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 3a)
above, it is found that the respondent zoning officer informed the complainant
in writing within four days of his request that the respondent did not hold a
meeting to discuss and sign the March 28, 2001 letter, and consequently there
were no minutes. At the hearing
in this matter the complainant acknowledged receipt of the respondent zoning
officer’s response. It is found
that there are no minutes because no meeting was held at which the March 28,
2001 letter was signed, as described more fully in paragraph 5, below.
5. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 3b)
above, it is found that the circumstances surrounding the drafting and signing
of the March 28, 2001 letter described in paragraph 2, above, are as follows:
the respondent board during a duly noticed regular meeting held on March 28,
2001 discussed an FOI complaint (“FOI Complaint”) filed by the complainant
concerning failure to file minutes within seven days, and which implicated the
chairman of the respondent board as well as the town transcriber who prepares
the minutes. Reflected in the
minutes of the March 28, 2001 meeting is that the respondent board discussed
the FOI complaint at length and the fact that the town transcriber was
overburdened and back-logged because she prepares the minutes for various town
agencies. There is also a
reference in the minutes of the March 28 meeting that the chairman of the
board would follow up on the FOI complaint with the Town Council by sending a
letter. Thereafter, the chairman prepared a letter addressed to the
Town Council. The letter dealt
with the FOI complaint, the transcriber’s back-log as well as criticized the
complainant, who is a member of the Town Council. The chairman then delivered
the letter to the zoning office on or about March 29, 2001.
Between March 29, 2001 and April 2, 2001 five additional members of the
respondent board went to the zoning office on separate occasions, reviewed the
letter, and signed it. On or
about April 2, 2001, the chairman of the respondent board picked up the signed
letter from the zoning office. The
chairman then read the contents of the letter at the Town Council’s next
meeting.
6. The complainant contends that the March 28, 2001 minutes,
described in paragraph 5, above, do not reflect that the respondent board
discussed and intended that the March 28 letter drafted by the chairman would
criticize the complainant. He
therefore believes there was an unnoticed meeting at which the five members of
the respondent board, who signed the letter, got together and discussed the
contents of such letter, thereby violating the open meetings rules of the FOI
Act.
7. It is found that the minutes are sparse on the issue of the
preparation of the letter and more particularly on the contents.
However, it is also found that the respondent board’s minutes are not
verbatim.
8.
Section 1-200(2), G.S.,
provides in relevant part:
‘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.
9. It is found that under the facts and circumstances of this
case, the actions of the five members of the respondent board in connection
with the review and signing of the letter, as described in paragraphs 5,
above, do not constitute a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.,
because the five members did not hold a “hearing or proceeding” or engage
in a discussion of the letter, other than at the respondent board’s duly
noticed regular meeting of March 28, 2001, as described in paragraph 5, above.
10.
Consequently, 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 March 13, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Zoning Enforcement Officer,
Town of Watertown; and
Zoning Board of Appeals,
Town of Watertown
c/o Franklin G. Pilicy, Esq.
365 Main Street, PO Box 760
Watertown, CT 06795-0760
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-363/FD/paj/3/15/2002