FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| John M. Wynne, | |||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2005-152 | ||
|
Town Attorney, Town of Fairfield; Town Clerk, Town of Fairfield; and Historic District Commission, Town of Fairfield, |
|||
| Respondents | February 22, 2006 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 21, 2005, 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. By letter of complaint filed April 5, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:
a. failing to respond to his March 15, March 26, and April 1, 2005 requests for the record of vote for the February 3, 2005 meeting of the respondent Historic District Commission (“HDC”);
b. failing to respond to his January 26, February 5, and March 5, 2005 requests for “information regarding actions of the HDC associated with property located at 144 Harbor Road, Southport, or the indication that no such information exists;”
c. failing to respond to his January 26, February 5, and March 5, 2006 requests for access to or identification of records relating to HDC guidelines, procedures and regulations governing its operation, or to indicate that such records do not exist;
d. providing only a portion of the audio tape of the HDC’s March 10, 2005 meeting, and failing to provide the remainder when requested on March 26, 2005;
e. discussing topics at meetings that were not included on the agenda for those meetings; and
f. conducting executive sessions without voting to enter into such sessions, or indicating the purpose of such executive sessions.
3. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.a of the findings, above, it is found that the issue of the record of vote at the HDC’s February 3, 2005, meeting was the subject of a previous complaint by the same complainant, Docket #FIC 2003-360, which was withdrawn by the complainant after a voluntary settlement.
4. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, which minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.
5. It is found that the complainant has been provided with a copy of the only record of vote at that meeting, which record of vote describes the subject matter of the vote, and the names of the two individuals who moved, seconded, and carried the motion. However, the complainant contends that the record of vote is improper, because the vote was conducted in the absence of a quorum.
6. It is concluded that the record of vote provided to the complainant satisfies the requirements of §1-225(a), G.S.
7. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2.b and 2.c of the findings, above, it is concluded that the complainant’s request requires the respondent to conduct research not required by the FOI Act.
8. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.d of the findings, above, it is found that the respondent HDC made a tape recording of its March 10, 2005 regular meeting.
9. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:
“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
10. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….
11. It is concluded that the tape recording of the respondent HDC’s March 10, 2005 regular meeting is a public record within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.
12. It is also found that the tape recording of the meeting is incomplete, apparently due to a malfunction of the tape recorder, and that the copy provided to the complainant is a copy of this incomplete recording.
13. It is concluded that the respondent HDC did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., when it provided the complainant with a copy of the only tape of the HDC’s March 10, 2005 regular meeting in its possession.
14. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2.e and 2.f of the findings, above, it is found that all of the meetings at which the complainant alleges the respondents violated the FOI Act, with the exception of two March 10, 2005 meetings, occurred before March 6, 2005, more than 30 days before the filing of this complaint.
15. Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.
16. It is found that none of the meetings before March 6, 2005 alleged by the complainant to be improper were secret or unnoticed.
17. It is therefore concluded that the Commission has no jurisdiction to address alleged violations occurring at meetings of the respondent HDC before March 6, 2005.
18. With respect to the respondent HDC’s March 10, 2005 regular meeting, §1-225(c), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of a public agency present and voting, any subsequent business not included in such filed agendas may be considered and acted upon at such meetings.
19. With respect to the respondent HDC’s March 10, 2005 special meeting, §1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part:
The notice [of special meeting] shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency.
20. With respect to both March 10, 2005 meetings, §1-225(f), G.S., provides:
A public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting, taken at a public meeting and stating the reasons for such executive session, as defined in section 1-200.
21. It is found that the respondent HDC did not take up any subsequent business at its March 10, 2005 regular meeting that was not included in the filed agenda for that meeting.
22. It is found that the respondent did not consider any business at its March 10, 2005 special meeting that was not specified in the notice of that meeting.
23. It is found that the respondent HDC did not, at either its regular or special meetings on March 10, 2005, enter into executive session without an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members present and stating the reason for the executive session, as defined in §1-200, G.S.
24. It is concluded that the respondent HDC did not violate the provisions of §1-225(c), (d) and (f) as alleged by the complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is 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:
John M. Wynne
56 Taylor Place
Southport, CT 06890
Town Attorney, Town of Fairfield;
Town Clerk, Town of Fairfield; and
Historic District Commission,
Town of Fairfield
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2005-152FD/paj/2/28/2006