FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Ronald M.
Gregory,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-39
Wallingford Town
Council of the Town of Wallingford,
Respondent May 14, 1986
The above-captioned matter was
scheduled to be heard as a contested case with #FIC 86-40, Edward R. Bradley
vs. Wallingford Town Council, on February 28, 1986, because of the similarity
of the subject matter. On February 28,
1986 the complainants appeared and requested a continuance and the matter was
continued to April 4, 1986, at which time the parties appeared and presented
evidence and argument on the complaint.
Thereafter, the matter was continued to April 25, 1986, at which time
the parties appeared and presented additional evidence and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. The
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because of the failure of the Freedom
of Information Commission to comply with the requirements set forth at
1-21i(b), G.S.
3. Section
1-21i(b), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Said commission shall, within twenty
days after receipt of the notice of appeal, hear such appeal after due notice
to the parties and shall decide the appeal within thirty days after such
hearing.
4.
Notice was sent to all parties on February 21, 1986 for the scheduled hearing
on February 28, 1986.
5. On
February 28, 1986 only the complainants appeared to request a continuance.
6. The
continuance was granted and the matter was continued to April 4, 1986, and
thereafter to April 25, 1986.
Docket #FIC
86-39 page 2
7. It
is found that the hearing was opened on February 28, 1986, and that the
requirements of 1-21i(b), G.S., have been satisfied.
8. The
complainant alleged that the respondent had failed to file a notice as required
by 1-21, G.S., that it would hold a special meeting to discuss the
Resource Recovery Plant to be built in Wallingford on February 10, 1986.
9. Respondent
admits that the notice was not posted, but argues that because of widespread
publicity the effect of its failure to post a notice was only a technical
violation.
10. Complainant
urges that the Commission hold a hearing to determine whether a civil penalty
is appropriate.
11. It
is found that the violation of 1-21, G.S. was inadvertant, and although a
notice should have been posted, in this case a hearing on a civil penalty is
not appropriate.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall henceforth post notices for its special meetings in accordance
with 1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of May 14, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission