FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 6, 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 March 19, 2005 and filed on March 24, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to attend its March 1, 2005 special meeting.

 

3.      Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”

 

4.      It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on March 1, 2005.

 

5.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that the door to the room in which the meeting was held was locked and that he had to knock on the door to gain access.  The complainant claimed that a member of the respondent answered the door and, after consulting with another member of the respondent inside the room, informed the complainant that the meeting was not open to the public and that he should attend the regular meeting that was scheduled for the next week.

 

6.      It is found however that the complainant came to the back door of the meeting room, rather than the front door, which door was open.

 

7.      It is found that a member of the respondent opened the door and engaged the complainant in a conversation during which the complainant explained that he wanted to speak during the meeting on two specific issues but was informed that since the meeting was a special meeting and the agenda did not include any of the complainant’s issues, the complainant would not be able to address those issues. 

 

8.      It is found that the respondent informed the complainant that he was welcome to attend the March 1, 2005 special meeting and that he should try to address his issues at the next regular meeting of the respondent. 

 

9.      It is found however that the complainant decided not to attend the March 1, 2005 special meeting.

 

10.   It is found that the complainant was not denied access to attend the March 1, 2005 special meeting and it is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the open meetings provisions of §1-225, G.S.

 

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 February 22, 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:

 

Michael DeBenedet

c/o Alfred J. Cronk, Esq.

PO Box 120147

East Haven, CT 06512

 

Water Pollution Control Authority,

Town of East Haven

c/o William W. Cote, Esq.

305 South End Road

East Haven, CT 06512

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-139FD/paj/2/27/2006