FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Margaret I. Gradie,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-5

 

Putnam Inland-Wetlands Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  April 13, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 11, 1994, 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 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on January 7, 1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., by conducting meetings without proper notice and by conducting business not stated in its notice of special meeting for December 15, 1993.  The complainant requested that a subdivision approval granted by the respondent at its special meeting of December 15, 1993 be overturned by this Commission with the proviso that the respondent hear public comment on that application prior to a new vote.

 

            3.  At the hearing into this matter, the complainant claimed that she had been unaware that the respondent would hear public comment at its special meeting of December 15, 1993.

 

            4.  It is found that at its special meeting of December 15, 1993, the respondent heard public comment on a pending application.

 

            5.  It is found that proper notice was posted at least twenty-four hours in advance of the respondent's special meeting of December 15, 1993, which notice identified all applications under consideration at that time.

 

            6.  It is concluded that the respondent is not in violation of the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., under the facts of this case.

 

Docket #FIC 94-5                               Page 2

 

            7.  This Commission notes that the record in this case is devoid of any other evidence that the respondent failed to properly notice any of its meetings within the operative period of the complaint in this matter.

 

            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 April 13, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-5                               Page 3

 

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:

Ms. Margaret I. Gradie

8 Bradley Road

Putnam, CT 06260

 

Putnam Inland-Wetlands Commission

c/o William H. St. Onge, Esq.

Boland, St. Onge & Brouillard

P.O. Box 550

Putnam, CT 06260

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission