FIC2003-156

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Marshall and Laurie Klimasewiski,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2003-156
David Wigg, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Morris; Christine Bochicchio; Kevin Chilson; Kim Dore; Richard Grinvalsky; Christopher Pawlowski; and Roger Watts, as members, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Morris; and Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Morris,
		Respondents	December 10, 2003

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 6, 2003, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, contested cases docket #s FIC 2003-039, Marshall Klimasewiski v. Chairman, Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission, Town of Morris and FIC 2003-232, Michael Doyle, Chairman, Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission, Town of Morris; and Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission, Town of Morris were consolidated with the above-captioned case.

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 of complaint dated April 21, 2003 and filed with the Commission on April 25, 2003, the complainants appealed alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

a) failing to comply with their requests of December 26, 2002 and April 4, 2003 to provide them with notice of all Planning and Zoning meetings; and

b) establishing a bylaw regarding videotaping of the respondent commission’s meetings which is not in keeping with the FOI Act.

3. Section 1-227, G.S., requires a public agency to "where practicable, give notice by mail of each regular meeting and any special meeting which is called, at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting, to any person who has filed a written request for such notice".

4. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a, above, the respondent chairman conceded that he previously failed to provide the complainants with notice of each meeting of the respondent commission. He testified that, whereas in the past he provided the complainants with a copy of the annual schedule of meetings, at present, he is now providing the complainants with a copy of the agenda/notice of each meeting of the respondent commission. The complainants acknowledged at the hearing in this matter that they have started to receive such agenda/notice as of August/September 2003.

5. It is concluded that the respondents violated §1-227, G.S., when they failed to provide the complainants with notice of each of the respondent commission’s meetings.

6. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, above, §1‑225(e), G.S., provides in relevant part:

[N]o member of the public shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of any such body, to register the member's name, or to furnish other information, or complete a questionnaire or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to the member's attendance. [Emphasis added.]

7. Section 1‑226, G.S., further provides:

(a) At any meeting of a public agency which is open to the public, pursuant to the provisions of section 1-225, proceedings of such public agency may be recorded, photographed, broadcast or recorded for broadcast, subject to such rules as such public agency may have prescribed prior to such meeting, by any person or by any newspaper, radio broadcasting company or television broadcasting company. Any recording, radio, television or photographic equipment may be so located within the meeting room as to permit the recording, broadcasting either by radio or television, or by both, or the photographing of the proceedings of such public agency. The photographer or broadcaster and its personnel, or the person recording the proceedings, shall be required to handle the photographing, broadcast or recording as inconspicuously as possible and in such manner as not to disturb the proceedings of the public agency. As used herein the term television shall include the transmission of visual and audible signals by cable.

(b) Any such public agency may adopt rules governing such recording, photography or the use of such broadcasting equipment for radio or television stations but, in the absence of the adoption of such rules and regulations by such public agency prior to the meeting, such recording, photography or the use of such radio and television equipment shall be permitted as provided in subsection (a).

8. It is found that the respondent commission adopted a bylaw which provides, in relevant part: “[T]he person doing the recording should provide his name to be recorded into the minutes of the proceedings.”

9. It is found that under the FOI Act any person may record a public meeting without providing his or her name as a condition precedent.

10. The respondent chairman testified at the hearing in this matter that no one will be required to provide his or her name as a condition precedent to recording a meeting. He indicated further that if an individual is asked to provide his or her name, and refuses to do so, such refusal will not bar the individual from being permitted to record the meeting.

11. With respect to the complainants’ contention that the respondents a) have forced cameras to be located at the rear of the auditorium, which makes it impossible to hear what is being said, b) denied the placement of microphones near the members, and c) have allowed microphones to be placed near a heating system which causes a loud hum, and which impedes hearing and proper recording.

12. It is concluded that the respondent commission has the right to determine the location of cameras and placement of microphones. However, the area so designated for location of cameras and microphones must be adequate and reasonable to allow for a recording of sound quality. The complainants must also be mindful that the person recording must handle the recording equipment as inconspicuously as possible and in a manner as to not disturb the proceedings, in keeping with the provisions of §1-226(a), G.S.

13. The request for civil penalties is denied.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with §1-227, G.S.

2. Henceforth, the respondents shall designate an appropriate area/s for location of camera equipment and microphones that are adequate and reasonable, and in keeping with §1-226, G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 10, 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:

Marshall and Laurie Klimasewiski

c/o Ralph S. Keen III, Esq.

406 Farmington Avenue

Farmington, CT 06032

David Wigg, Chairman