FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 21, 2007, 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.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on July 3, 2007.  It is found that the minutes of such meeting were approved on August 7, 2007, and reflect that the following topics were discussed under “New Business”:

 

a.       Wendy Lautch informed the Commission that she wished to replace her front door, and that the respondent would hear such application at its August regular meeting. 

 

b.       Fred Facius requested permission to replace the rear roof of his home and submitted an application for such work.  A discussion of the color and type of replacement shingles followed. 

 

“Doug MacKeown made a motion to approve the reroofing of [Mr. Facius’ property] to replace the asphalt roof with an asphalt roof on the home and eventually to do the work on the garage.  Although there is a slightly different color this request is acceptable.  The commission determined a certificate of occupancy is not required due to the work being repaired/replaced.  Motion passed 4-0.”

 

            3.  By e-mail dated and filed on August 20, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by not accurately reflecting the proceedings of the July 3, 2007 meeting.  Specifically, the complainant alleges that (a) the business described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above, was not conducted under “New Business” but rather was conducted under “Public Remarks,” and the minutes are incorrect in that regard.   The complainant also alleges that (b) the description following the actual motion described in paragraph 2.b, above, is incorrect. 

 

            4.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part, that each public agency “shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.”

 

            5.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that: “…[t]he 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.”

 

                 6.  It is axiomatic that the FOI Act does not require verbatim minutes.  Rather, the Commission has long held that minutes must contain, at a minimum, the date, time, and place of the meeting, members present, action taken, and the votes of members with respect to any such action. 

 

                 7.  It is concluded that the allegation described in paragraph 3.a, above, does not allege a violation of the FOI Act.  

 

                 8.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 3.b, above, it is found that the motion made and vote counts are accurate.  It is further found that the complainant takes issue with the description, which follows such motion and contends that it violates the FOI Act, since it is not a verbatim depiction of what occurred on July 3, 2007.  However, the Commission notes that no such description is even required by the FOI Act.  Moreover, it is found that such description fairly describes the decision to approve the roofing request. 

     

                  9.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, 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 hereby dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 27, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Margaret Faber

c/o Joseph J. Shainess, Esq.

547 Main Street

Suite 202

Middletown, CT 06457

           

Middle Haddam Historic District

Commission, Town of East Hampton

c/o Janet P. Brooks, Esq.

D’Aquila & Brooks, LLC

547 Main Street

Suite 103

Middletown, CT 06457

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-441FD/paj/3/11/2008