FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on November 2, 2005, at which time the respondent appeared, however, the complainant failed to appear to prosecute the complaint.

 

The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decisions in contested case docket #FIC 2004-554, Charles Bezio v. Office of the First Selectman, Town of Litchfield (“FIC 2004-554”) and FIC 2004-582, Charles Bezio v. First Selectman, Town of Litchfield; and Board of Selectmen, Town of Litchfield (“FIC 2004-582”).  In both FIC 2004-554 and FIC 2004-582, although the respondent First Selectman appeared at the scheduled hearing in those matters, the complainant failed to appear.  In the order of the final decisions in FIC 2004-554 and FIC 2004-582 the Commission indicated the following:  

 

“1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

2.  The Commission admonishes the complainant for his failure to appear and more so, for his failure to timely notify the Commission that he would be unable to appear in this matter.”

  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.

2.  The Commission admonishes the complainant for his failure to appear at the scheduled hearing in this matter and for again failing to timely notify the Commission that he would be unable to appear in this matter, which has again resulted in the expenditure by the town of Litchfield and this Commission of scarce municipal and state resources.

  3.  The complainant is advised that pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S., “[i]f the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, after such person has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars….” [Emphasis added].      

 

4.  The complainant is further advised that §1-206(b)(2), G.S., in relevant part provides that “[i]f the executive director of the commission has reason to believe an appeal under subdivision (1) of this subsection or subsection (c) of this section…would perpetrate an injustice; or …would constitute an abuse of the commission's administrative process, the executive director shall not schedule the appeal for hearing without first seeking and obtaining leave of the commission…”      

5.  The respondent is advised that pursuant to §1-241, G.S., “[A] public agency, … may bring an action to the Superior Court against any person who was denied leave by the Freedom of Information Commission to have his appeal heard by the commission under subsection (b) of section 1-206 because the commission determined and found that such appeal or the underlying request would perpetrate an injustice or would constitute an abuse of the commission’s administrative process.  The action authorized under this section shall be limited to an injunction prohibiting such person from bringing any further appeal to the commission which would perpetrate an injustice or would constitute an abuse of the commission’s administrative process.  If, after such an injunction is ordered, the person subject to the injunction brings a further appeal to the Freedom of Information Commission and the commission determines that such appeal would perpetrate an injustice or would constitute an abuse of the commission’s administrative process, such person shall be conclusively deemed to have violated the injunction and such agency may seek further injunctive and equitable relief, damages, attorney’s fees and costs, as the court may order.” 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Charles Bezio

1266 New Litchfield Street

Torrington, CT 06790

 

First Selectman, Town of Litchfield  

c/o Paul S. Tagatac, Esq.

Michelson, Kane, Royster & Barger

93 Oak Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-412FD/paj/1/17/2006