FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Eugene M. Stack, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-236
Harold White, President Marlborough Association for Senior Housing, Marijean Hunt,
Robert Sekoll, Patricia Beatty, Ellie Wazer, Esther Coleman, Stephen O'Connell, Peter
Shevchenko, James Ameling and Marlborough Association for Senior Housing,
Respondents April 13, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 22, 1993, 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 respondent Marlborough Association for Senior Housing (hereinafter "MASH") is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated and filed September 21, 1993, the complainant appealed to this Commission and alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act by failing to:
a. file a list of MASH's regular
meetings by January 31, 1993;
b. put into writing within
forty-eight hours the votes
taken at MASH meetings;
c. make MASH minutes available
within seven days of such meetings;
Docket #FIC 93-236 Page 2
d. file an agenda for MASH's
September 18, 1993 meeting as well
as the March, July and August
1993 meetings; and
e. properly conduct a two-thirds
vote of those members present to add
site inspections to MASH's June 19
and September 18, 1993 meetings.
3. In addition, the complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.
4. The Commission takes administrative notice of the records and its decisions in docket #s FIC 93-39, 93-1, 92-328, 92-247, 91-241, and 91-299.
5. With regard to the complainant's allegation described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that as of the date of the hearing in this matter the respondents had not filed a schedule of their regular meetings for the 1993 calendar year, with the town clerk, as required by 1-21(a), G.S., and it is concluded therefore that the respondents violated the terms of that provision.
6. With regard to the complainant's allegations described in paragraphs 2b. and 2c., above, it is found, except with respect to the specific meetings identified below, that such allegations are general in nature and that the Commission has insufficient evidence to conclude that the respondents violated the FOI Act with respect to such general allegations.
7. With respect to the complainant's allegations described in paragraphs 2c. and 2d., above, concerning respondent MASH's September 18, 1993 meeting, it is found that the respondents failed to make available to the public an agenda for such meeting and further that the minutes for such meeting were not available for public inspection within seven days of such meeting, in violation of the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S. With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2d., above, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to determine whether similar violations occurred with regard to MASH's March, July and August meetings.
8. With respect to the complainant's allegation described in paragraph 2e., above, it is found that the Commission has no factual basis upon which to conclude that the respondents violated the FOI Act in the conduct of MASH's September 18, 1993 site inspection. The Commission lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the respondents violated the FOI Act in the conduct of MASH's June 19, 1993 site inspection.
Docket #FIC 93-236 Page 3
9. The Commission finds based upon a review of the record in this matter, the individual respondents' failure to personally appear, other than through their counsel, to offer testimony on their behalf at the hearing on this matter and the prior decisions rendered by this Commission that the respondents have not demonstrated an attempt at good faith compliance with the FOI Act.
10. Accordingly, it is concluded that the violations described in paragraphs 5 and 7, above, were without reasonable grounds.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
2. Respondent Harold White, due to his role as MASH's President and as the individual primarily responsible for ensuring MASH's compliance with the FOI Act, shall, within thirty days of the mailing of notice of final decision in this matter, remit to this Commission the sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 13, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-236 Page 4
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:
Mr. Eugene M. Stack, Jr.
149 Cheney Road
Marlborough, CT 06447
Harold White, President, Marlborough Association for Senior Housing, Marijean Hunt, Robert Sekoll, Patricia Beatty, Ellie Wazer, Esther Coleman, Stephen O'Connell, Peter Shevchenko, James Ameling and Marlborough Association for Senior Housing
c/o John Goodrich, Jr., Esq.
Gordon, Muir and Foley
Ten Columbus Boulevard
Hartford, CT 06106-1944
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission