FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Ruben Abreu, Jr. and Citizens Television, Inc.,

 

                                Complainants

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-104

 

State of Connecticut, Governor's Blue Ribbon

Commission on Welfare Fraud and Reform,

 

                                Respondent                          February 28, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 1, 1995 and November 7, 1995, at which times the complainants and respondent appeared 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 dated April 3, 1995 and filed with this Commission on April 6, 1995, the complainants alleged that they were prevented from recording the respondent's March 16, 1995 public hearing in violation of 1-21a, G.S.

 

                3.             It is found that on March 16, 1995 the respondent held a public hearing ("March hearing"), in New Haven, Connecticut, the last in a series of seven public hearings held statewide.

 

                4.             It is found that the respondent's intelligence forces indicated that several hundred people intended to picket the March hearing.

 

                5.             It is found that similar concerns about pickets, disruption, and the need for security arose at the respondent's earlier public hearings and were handled by local police providing four or five police officers to act as a security force for the respondent.

 

Docket #FIC 95-104                                             Page 2

 

                6.             It is found that for the March hearing the city had made available only one police officer, and therefore additional security was requested from the state's attorney's office.

 

                7.             It is found that the state's attorney's office provided the respondent with seven members of its "fugitive squad" to augment its security force for the March hearing.

 

                8.             It is found that the fugitive squad seeks to arrest the subjects of fugitive warrants.

 

                9.             It is found that the complainants wanted to videotape the March hearing for later broadcast using the existing cameras in the aldermanic chamber where the proceeding was going to be held.

 

                10.           Specifically, it is found that the complainants wanted to use all three of the cameras affixed to, and strategically placed in the aldermanic chamber where the March hearing was held, however the respondent would only permit the use of one camera to videotape the proceeding from the left side of the room.

 

                11.           Section 1-21a(a), G.S., in pertinent part states that:

 

                At any meeting of a public agency which is open to the public, ... proceedings of such public agency may be recorded, ... broadcast or recorded for broadcast, subject to such rules as such public agency may have prescribed prior to such meeting, ....  The  ... broadcaster and its personnel, or the person recording the proceedings, shall be required to handle the ... broadcast or recording as inconspicuously as possible and in such manner as not to disturb the proceedings of the public agency.

 

 

                12.           The respondent maintains that the restrictions on both the number of available cameras and the angle from which the March hearing could be videotaped were necessary to protect the identities of the members of its security force who would be among audience members.

 

                13.           It is found that in an attempt to reach a workable solution that might accomodate the complainants' artistic and journalistic concerns, without revealing the identities of its security force, the respondent delayed the March hearing for an hour.

 

Docket #FIC 95-104                                             Page 3

 

                14.           It is found that while the complainants never expressly refused to use one camera as requested by the respondent, even after the delay of the proceeding, they continued to express their strong preference for access to, and use of all three cameras in the aldermanic chamber.

 

                15.           It is found that at least one other television station was represented at the March hearing, and its television crew filmed and broadcast the proceeding in accordance with the respondent's request.

 

                16.           It is found that under the facts presented, the rules prescribed by the respondent for the videotaping and broadcasting of the March hearing did not prevent the complainants from videotaping the March hearing, or otherwise recording it for broadcast.

 

                17.           Therefore, upon these facts it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of 1-21a(a), G.S.

 

                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 28, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-104                                             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:

Ruben Abreu, Jr. and Citizens Television, Inc.

873 State Street

New Haven, CT 06511

 

State of Connecticut, Governor's Blue Ribbon

Commission on Welfare Fraud and Reform

c/o Sharon A. Scully, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

P.O. Box 120

Hartford, CT 06106

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission