FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Clyde A. Selner,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 94-403

 

Berlin Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission,

 

                                Respondent                          September 27, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 19, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket #FIC 95-58, Clyde A. Selner v. Berlin Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission, was consolidated for hearing with this case.

 

                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 dated November 12, 1994 and filed on November 15, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to provide him with notice by mail of its October 11, 1994 special meeting.  The complainant requests that all actions taken at the meeting be declared null and void.

 

                3.  It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on October 11, 1994.

 

                4.  It is found that on November 9, 1994, while going through the respondent's minutes at the town hall the complainant became aware that the October 11, 1994 special meeting had occurred.

 

                5.  It is found that the complainant received notice in fact of the October 11, 1994 special meeting on November 9, 1994.

 

Docket #FIC 94-403                                             Page 2

 

                6.  It is concluded that the Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal as the complainant's notice of appeal was filed within thirty days of his receiving notice in fact of the October 11, 1994 special meeting.

 

                7.  Section 1-21c, G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                                [T]he public agency shall, where practicable, give notice by mail of each regular meeting, and of any special meeting which is called, at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting, to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with such body, except that such body may give such notice as it deems practical of special meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the meeting.  [Emphasis added].

 

                8.  It is found that on March 14, 1994 the complainant filed a written request for notice of meetings with the respondent pursuant to 1-21c, G.S., which request specified in relevant part:

 

                                5.  The ... [complainant] pursuant to C.G.S. 1-21c, also requests that he be given written notice by mail of all hearings and meetings to be held in connection with the proceedings pertaining to the above-captioned permit for the Berlin Steel Company's project.  [Emphasis added].

 

                9.  It is found that the complainant's request for notice, described in paragraph 8, above, limits his request to notice of meetings in connection with the Berlin Steel Company's permit and was not a blanket request for notice of all meetings of the respondent.

 

                10.  It also found that the subject matter dealt with at the October 11, 1994 special meeting had nothing to do with the Berlin Steel Company's permit.

 

                11.  Further it is found that the respondent filed notice of the October 11, 1994 special meeting with the town clerk's office on October 6, 1994, and such notice comports with the notice requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

                12.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21c, G.S., when it failed to send notice by mail to the complainant of the October 11, 1994 special meeting.

 

Docket #FIC 94-403                                                  Page 3

 

                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 September 27, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-403                                             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. Clyde A. Selner

32 Edgerly Street

Kensington, CT 06037

 

Berlin Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission

c/o Stephen J. Anderson, Esq.

Berlin Office of the Corporation Counsel

136 West Main Street

P.O. Box 2950

New Britain, CT 06050

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission