FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 19, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with docket #FIC 2005-602, Frank A. Loda v. Robert J. Koskelowski, First Selectman, Town of Seymour; docket #FIC2005-617, Frank A. Loda v. Robert J. Koskelowski, First Selectman, Town of Seymour; George Temple, Town Counsel, Town of Seymour; Patrick Lombardi, Deputy First Selectman, Town of Seymour; John D. Conroy, Jr., Selectman, Town of Seymour; John Putorti, Selectman, Town of Seymour; and Board of Selectmen, Town of Seymour; and docket #FIC 2006-032, Frank A. Loda v. Board of Selectmen, Town of Seymour.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  It is found that the respondent first selectman is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.  It is found that the respondent town counsel is not a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., but serves in the capacity as counsel to the Seymour Board of Selectmen (hereinafter "board").  It is concluded that the allegations addressed herein are not properly brought against the town counsel.  Accordingly, all references hereinafter to the respondent do not include the town counsel. 

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated January 9, 2006, the complainant requested that the respondent make the following records available for his review:

 

a.       copies of the three (3) complaints you claimed to have received from residents ‘who did not feel comfortable being filmed’ during Board of Selectmen meetings that I have been taping for over the past year and one-half;

b.      copies of any audio recordings that would verify how comments that may be ‘whispered’ into a camera located at the remote location in the back of the meeting room can be considered ‘disruptive’;

c.       copy of any regulation that allows the Board of Selectmen to establish rules requiring cameras to be ‘shut off’ if residents do not want to be taped during the public comments session of any meeting;

d.      copy of any regulation that allows the Board of Selectmen to establish rules, as suggested by Town Counsel Temple, that could prevent the public comments session from being taped at all;

e.       copy of any regulation that allows the Board of Selectmen to establish rules that prevent a recording from being edited for transmission on Public Access by any citizen, or by the news media or by regular television or radio stations;

f.        copy of any regulation that allows the Board of Selectmen to establish rules that require a camera to be set up in a location that makes it impossible to obtain ‘frontal views’ of speakers from the back of the room, thereby preventing proper identification of the speaker; and

g.       copies of the audiotapes of the December 21, 2005 and January 3, 2006 meetings.

 

(hereinafter "requested records").  In his complaint, the complainant requested that a civil penalty be imposed in this matter.

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated January 9, 2006, the respondent first selectman acknowledged the complainant's request and informed the complainant that such request was being processed in a timely manner. 

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated January 13, 2006, the respondent first selectmen provided the complainant with a copy of a tape of the December 21, 2005 meeting in connection with a portion of the complainant's request, as described in paragraph 2g, above, and also provided the complainant with certain answers, with respect to the complainant's request, as described in paragraph 2a through 2f, and the remaining portion of the request, as described in paragraph 2g, above.

 

5.  Thereafter, by letter of complaint dated January 19, 2006 and filed with the Commission on January 23, 2006, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with access to all of the requested records.

 

6.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[e]xcept 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 … or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

7.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., further provides in relevant part: “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

8. It is found that the requested records, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

9.  With respect to the requested items as described in paragraph 2a through 2g, above, it is found that the respondent promptly provided the complainant with a copy of all of the records he has that are responsive to such requests.  Specifically, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the December 21, 2005 meeting tape, a copy of the January 3, 2006 video taping policy, and a copy of the minutes of the January 3, 2006 board meeting.

 

10.  It is found that no other records responsive to the complainant's request exist.

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

            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 December 13, 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:

 

Frank A. Loda

27 Osprey Drive

Seymour, CT 06483

 

Robert J. Koskelowski, First Selectman,

Town of Seymour; and George Temple,

Town Counsel, Town of Seymour

c/o George Temple, Esq.

241 Coram Avenue

Shelton, CT 06484

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-033FD/paj/12/19/2006