FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 14, 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.  It is found that the respondent commission held a regular meeting at 7 P.M. on May 11, 2005 [hereinafter “the May 11 meeting”] and that it also held a special meeting on May 5, 2005 [hereinafter “the May 5 meeting”].

 

3.  By letter dated May 23, 2005 and filed on May 24, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to make the votes of the May 11 meeting available within the time requirements set forth in §1-225, G.S., and by improperly requiring a precondition to the complainant’s attendance at the May 5 meeting.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties in this matter. 

 

4.      With respect to the allegation concerning the votes, §1-225(a), G.S., provides

in relevant part that: “…[t]he votes of each member of any…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, during the business day of May 13, 2005, the secretary of the respondent commission faxed the minutes of the May 11 meeting, which contained the votes, to the office of the Watertown Town Manager.  It is found that such office is the place of business of the respondents.   

 

6.  It is found that, on May 16, 2005, the complainant appeared at the office of the Watertown Town Manager and asked to inspect the May 11 meeting votes.  It is found that, at such time, an employee of the town manger mistakenly informed the complainant that such votes were not available. 

 

7.  It is found that, on Friday, May 20, 2005, the complainant again appeared at the office of the Watertown Town Manager and asked to inspect the May 11 meeting votes.  It is found that, at such time, an employee of the town manger again informed the complainant that such votes were not available.   It is further found that, at such time, such employee left a telephone message for the respondent board’s secretary inquiring about the May 11 meeting minutes. 

 

8.  It is found that, on Monday May 23, 2005, the respondent board’s secretary again faxed the minutes of the May 11 meeting to the town manger’s office.   It is found that, soon thereafter, the complainant obtained a copy of such minutes.

 

9.   The Commission recognizes that even in a well-managed office, mistakes can occur.   It is found that, although the respondents prepared the minutes and votes of the May 11 meeting within forty-eight hours and provided such minutes for public inspection to the town manger’s office, such votes were not available to the complainant within forty-eight hours as required by §1-225(a), G.S., because the town manager’s office mislaid the minutes that were faxed on May 13, 2005.   However, despite the fact that the town manager’s office made the mistake, it is found that the respondents have a responsibility under §1-225(a), G.S., to ensure that minutes and votes are available as required by law.   

 

10.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondents technically violated §1-225(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

11.    With respect to the allegation regarding a precondition to attendance at

the May 5 meeting, §1-225(e), G.S.,  provides in relevant part that: “[n]o member of the public shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of any such body, to register the member’s name, or furnish other information, or complete a questionnaire or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to the member’s attendance.”

 

12.  It is found that the May 5 meeting was conducted within the confines of the Watertown Police Department, in a secure area.  It is further found that on May 5, 2005,  the complainant entered the police department, proceeded to the secure area where he informed a police employee that he was there for the meeting, was immediately “buzzed in,” and attended the May 5 meeting.  It is also found that the complainant was not asked his name or delayed in any way from attending the May 5 meeting, because of the fact that he had to be “buzzed in”.  

 

13.  It is found that the procedure described in paragraph 12, above, was not a “condition to attendance” within the meaning of §1-225(e), G.S.  It is also found that the fact that the complainant had to inform a police department employee that he wished to attend the May 5 meeting was not “furnishing other information” within the meaning of such provision.   

 

 14.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-225(e), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

15.    The Commission declines to consider the imposition of a civil penalty in this

 matter.

 

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

 

1.      Forthwith, the respondents shall take steps to ensure that their votes and

minutes are received at the town manager’s office, and available for inspection, within the time requirements of  §1-225(a), G.S.  

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 8, 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:

 

Robert LeBlanc

78 Highland Avenue

Watertown, CT 06795

 

Thomas Durso, Chairman,

Police Commission, Town

of Watertown; and Police

Commission, Town of

Watertown

c/o Paul R. Jessell, Esq.

PO Box 9

680 Main Street

Watertown, CT 06795

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-246FD/paj/3/9/2006