FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 10, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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.      It is found that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated and filed on September 10, 2004, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by initiating actions to remove him from the Andover Economic Development Commission (hereinafter “the EDC”) without the proper basis to do so.  The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty. 

 

3.      It is found that the complainant made the following claims in support of his September 10, 2004 complainant:

 

a.  none of the meetings held by the EDC during 2004, but before September 10, 2004, were regular meetings, within the meaning of §1-225, G.S., because the EDC failed to file the annual schedule for such meeting with the town clerk prior to January 31, 2004 and held meetings on days other than those noticed in its April 12, 2004 schedule of regular meetings;

 

b.  the meetings of the EDC held during 2004, but before September 10, 2004, were special meetings for which the complainant should have been provided with separate notice of if he was still considered a member of the EDC; and

 

c.  he did not receive separate notice of the special meetings because the EDC acknowledged his February 28, 2004 resignation and therefore he was officially no longer a member and the respondent inappropriately exercised the Board of Selectman’s authority to remove him from the EDC.

 

4.  It is concluded that the allegation in the complaint, described in paragraph 2, above, does not allege a violation of the FOI Act.  It is further concluded that complainant’s claims in support of the allegation, as described in paragraph 3, above, do not allege a violation of the FOI Act, and reference the actions of the EDC, rather than the respondent herein.

 

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 July 13, 2005.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Dennis M. Foran

143 Hebron Road

Andover, CT 06232

 

Charlene Barnett,

First Selectman,

Town of Andover

17 School Road

Andover, CT 06232

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2004-419FD/paj/7/18/2005