FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 11, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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.  It is found that the respondent first selectman is an ex-officio member of the respondent board.

 

3.  By letter of complaint dated August 30, 2002, and filed with the Commission on September 4, 2002, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by:

 

a.  failing to comply with statutory requirements for noticing a special town meeting in a newspaper of substantial circulation; and

 

b.  failing to make available accurate motions and votes of a July 31, 2002 meeting of the respondent board within forty-eight hours.

 

            4.  It is found that the allegation described in paragraph 3.a, above, does not allege a violation of the FOI Act.  Accordingly, this Commission does not have subject matter jurisdiction over such allegation.

 

5.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 3.b, above, §1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[t]he votes of each member of any…public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours.” 

 

6.  It is found that the respondent board held a special meeting on July 31, 2002.  It is further found that the complainant attempted to inspect the record of votes for such meeting on August 6, 2002, but that such record was not available to the complainant at that time. 

 

7.  It is also found that the respondents provided the complainant with the record of votes of the July 31, 2002 meeting by August 8, 2002.

 

8.  It is found that the respondent first selectman acknowledged, by letter to the complainant dated August 26, 2002, that the record of votes for the July 31, 2002 meeting of the respondent board was late, and that the complainant had received such letter prior to filing the complaint herein.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondents conceded that they violated the FOI Act by failing to make available the record of votes of the July 31, 2002 meeting of the respondent board within forty-eight hours.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §1-225(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

9.  It is found that, since becoming aware of the violation described in paragraph 8, above, the respondent first selectman has taken steps to ensure that all boards and commissions in Barkhamsted are aware of the requirements of the FOI Act in general, and specifically, with respect to the requirement to make records of votes available within forty-eight hours. 

 

            Based upon the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order by the Commission is hereby recommended.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 22, 2003.

 

_______________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Lyndsey Keene

24 Woodland Acres Road

Barkhamsted, CT  06063

 

First Selectman, Town of

Barkhamsted; and Board of

Finance, Town of Barkhamsted

c/o Andrew C. Glassman, Esq.

Pullman & Comley, LLC

90 State House Square

Hartford, CT  06103-3702

 

 

 

________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-405/FD/mes/1/24/2003