FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 12, 2002, 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.  It is found that the respondent council held a properly noticed regular meeting on August 15, 2002.

 

3.  It is further found that at the meeting of August 15, 2002, the respondent council denied the complainant’s request for reconsideration of a decision to grant preliminary approval for a license to develop a power plant.

 

4.  By letter dated August 30, 2002, and filed on September 6, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to properly notice a meeting of the respondent council that was held sometime before the meeting of August 15, 2002.

 

5.  Specifically, the complainant alleges that in a telephone conversation on August 17, 2002, the respondent executive director stated that the complainant’s request was given the most discussion by the respondent council before the August 15, 2002 meeting. 

 

6.  The complainant requested that the Commission declare null and void the vote on the complainant’s request for a reconsideration of its August 15, 2002 meeting.

 

7.  Section 1-200(2), G.S., excludes from the definition of “meeting” for purposes of the FOI Act an administrative or staff meeting of a single member public agency.

 

8.  It is found that the complainant’s request for reconsideration was not discussed by the respondent council prior to its August 15, 2002 meeting, although it was discussed by members of the respondents’ staff.

 

9.  It is also found that the discussion of the complainant’s request for reconsideration did not constitute a meeting of the respondent council, but rather was an administrative or staff meeting of the respondent executive director as a single member public agency, and therefore is excluded from the requirements of the FOI Act.

 

            10.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent 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 complainant:

 

1.      The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

March 12, 2003.

 

 

________________________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

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:

 

Raymond Pietrorazio

40 Whittemore Road

Middlebury, CT   06762

 

 

Executive Director, State of Connecticut,
Connecticut Siting Council; and State of

Connecticut, Connecticut Siting Council

c/o Robert S. Golden, Jr., Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Ten Franklin Square

New Britain, CT   06051-2605, and

c/o Robert Marconi, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

Ten Franklin Square

New Britain, CT   06051-2605

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-417/FD/det/03142003