FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 20, 2003, 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 complainant hired a videographer for the purpose of videotaping the July 30, 2003 meeting of the respondent inland wetlands and watercourses commission and the August 6, 2003 meeting of the respondent planning and zoning commission.  It is also found that such videographer wished to use a tripod-mounted camera and place wireless microphones on the meeting table.

 

3.  It is found that the respondent town council adopted a policy governing recording and videotaping of public meetings by private parties in March, 1994.  The policy states:

 

TOWN POLICY ON

AUDIO RECORDING AND VIDEO TAPING PUBLIC MEETINGS

BY PRIVATE PARTIES

 

I.          PURPOSE – The purpose of this policy is to recognize the right of private parties to audio record and/or video tape public meetings; while also providing for order and safety during same and to insure the proper conduct of public meetings.

           

II.         DEVICES – All such private audio/video recording devices shall be confined to the public seating area and be hand held devices.

 

III.       OPERATION OF DEVICES –Private parties who audio record or video tape public meetings shall at all times use such equipment in a safe, reasonable non-disruptive manner, and shall not drape wiring across floors, chairs, tables, etc., nor shall any private parties set up tripods or other floor mounted equipment.  No one shall disrupt any meeting by altering the placement of furniture or by placing equipment on the meeting room table.  Equipment shall not take up seating or reduce the seating capacity of the meeting room.

 

IV.              SAFETY –All orders of the Fire Marshal shall be complied with when bringing electrical equipment into a public meeting room.

 

4.  It is found that prior to the July 30, 2003 meeting of the respondent inland wetlands and watercourses commission, the complainant contacted the East Hampton Town Planner, and informed her of his intent to videotape the meetings.  The Town Planner informed the complainant that the respondent council had adopted the policy mentioned in paragraph 3, above.  The complainant asked the Town Planner whether the Town would reconsider its requirements.  The Town Planner informed the complainant that the policy governing recording and videotaping would not be altered.

 

5.  By letter dated and filed on July 28, 2003, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents planning and zoning commission and inland wetlands and watercourses commission violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by placing unreasonable restrictions upon the videotaping of two upcoming public meetings of the respective respondents on August 6, 2003 and July 30, 2003.  By letter dated and filed on August 5, 2003, the complainant amended his complaint to add the town council as a respondent in this matter.  The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty. 

 

6.  It is found that the respondent inland wetlands and watercourses commission conducted a meeting on July 30, 2003.  The videographer did appear and videotape the meeting under the conditions imposed by the respondent Town of East Hampton.  The complainant maintains that the result and quality of the videotape is inadequate as a result of the restrictions imposed by the respondent council and the respondent inland wetlands and watercourses commission.

 

7.  The respondents maintain that the restrictions imposed under the policy help to ensure the safety of persons attending meetings and the absence of such restrictions would impede public officials from freely moving throughout the meeting room.

 

8.  At the hearing on this matter, there was significant testimony raised by the complainant with respect to the poor visual and audio quality of the videotape.  In this regard, there was testimony that the ability to use a tripod-mounted camera would have helped the ability to pan the room, rather than relying on only a hand-held camera.  There was additional testimony that several microphones could have been placed in key locations, such as a podium or dais.

 

9.  Section 1-226, G.S., reads in pertinent part:

(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 by 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 and 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).

10.  It is found that the respondent town council’s policy expressly forbids:

 

a.       The use of non hand-held devices and video equipment that requires draping “wiring across floors, chairs, tables, etc.”;

b.      the use of tripods or other floor mounted equipment;

c.       the placement of microphones on the meeting room table;

d.      the placement of any equipment or materials on seating; and

e.       altering the placement of furniture.

 

11.  It is found that pursuant to §1-226(a), G.S., the complainant had a right to videotape the meeting and use the quality equipment he wished, so long as he was not disruptive of the meeting.

 

            12.  It is also found that the respondents town council and inland wetlands and watercourses commission failed to prove that the complainant’s videotaping of the meeting using equipment of his choice would disrupt the meeting.  It is further found that the respondents town council and inland wetlands and watercourses commission failed to prove that the policy described in paragraph 3, above, was necessary to ensure no interference with the July 30, 2003 meeting described in paragraph 6, above.

 

13.  It is further found that under the facts presented, the policy prescribed by the respondents town council and inlands wetlands and watercourses commission for the videotaping of meetings is too strict and therefore violates the letter and the spirit of the rights conferred in §1-226(a), G.S.

 

            14.  It is found that the complainant offered no evidence regarding a violation of the FOI Act by the respondent planning and zoning commission with respect to its August 6, meeting.  Therefore, the allegation against such commission shall not be addressed herein.

                                                                                                                                            

15.  The Commission declines to consider the imposition of civil penalties in this matter.

           

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

 

1.         Henceforth, the respondent inland wetlands and watercourse commission and the respondent town council shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-226(a), G.S.

 

2.         With respect to the respondent planning and zoning commission, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 10, 2004.

 

___________________________________

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:

 

Eric Knapp, Esq.

Branse & Willis, LLC

41-C New London Turnpike

Glen Lochen East

Glastonbury, CT  06033-2038

 

Planning and Zoning Commission,

Town of East Hampton; and Inland

Wetlands and Watercourses Commission,

Town of East Hampton

c/o Jean M. D’Aquila, Esq.

Howard, McMillan & D’Aquila

386 Main Street

Middletown, CT  06457

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-264/FD/abg/03/12/2004