FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Kathy A. Velky,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-202

 

Woodbury Inland Wetlands Agency and Woodbury Town Planner,

 

                                Respondents                        March 27, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 28, 1995, 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on June 19, 1995, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondent Agency violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to comply with its by-laws, procedures and regulations, and the respondent Town Planner failed to provide her with access to a copy of the enforcement action letter and bill (hereinafter "letter" and "bill"), pertaining to an Inland Wetlands regulation violation concerning Charles Stockwell (hereinafter "Stockwell matter").

 

                3.  It is concluded that of the violations alleged in the June 19, 1995 complaint, referred to in paragraph 2, above, this Commission has jurisdiction to address only the following:

 

                                a.  that the respondent Agency considered and acted upon the Stockwell matter at its May 22, 1995 meeting when such matter was neither on the agenda nor added to the agenda; and

 

                                b.  that the respondent Town Planner failed to provide the complainant with prompt access to a copy of the letter and bill.

 

Docket #FIC 95-202                                               Page 2

 

                4.  With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 3a., above, it is found that the respondent Agency held a regular meeting on May 22, 1995.

 

                5.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent Agency conceded that at the May 22, 1995 meeting, described in paragraph 4, above, it considered and acted upon the Stockwell matter, which matter was neither on the respondent Agency's May 22, 1995 agenda nor was such matter added to the May 22, 1995 agenda.

 

                6.  It is also found that at its June 12, 1995 regular meeting the respondent Agency, in an attempt to rectify the May 22, 1995 incorrect procedure, properly added the Stockwell matter to the June 12, 1995 agenda, and then reconsidered such matter.

 

                7.  It is concluded that the respondent Agency violated 1-21(a), G.S., when it considered and acted upon the Stockwell matter at the May 22, 1995 meeting when such matter was not on the agenda and without the respondent Agency first obtaining a two-thirds vote of its members to add such matter to the agenda.

 

                8.  With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 3b., above, it is found that on June 15 and 16, 1995 the complainant visited the respondent Town Planner's office  and requested a copy of the letter and bill, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

                9.  It is found that at the time of the complainant's visit on June 15, 1995, described in paragraph 8, above, the respondent Town Planner was unavailable and Sue Bartlett, secretary, informed the complainant that the letter had not yet been completed and that the respondent Town Planner had the bill.

 

                10.  It is found that on June 15 and 16, 1995 the letter had not yet been written, however, the bill existed and was being kept in the Finance department's office down the hall from the respondent Town Planner's office.

 

                11.  It is found that on or about June 20, 1995 the complainant told the respondent Town Planner that he should mail her a copy of the bill along with a copy of the letter.

 

                12.  It is found that the respondent Town Planner mailed the complainant a copy of the letter and bill on June 26, 1995, which the complainant received shortly thereafter.

 

                13.  It is concluded that the respondent Town Planner's provision of access to the bill on June 26, 1995, eleven days after the request on June 15, 1995, was not prompt within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 95-202                                                  Page 3

 

                14.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent Town Planner violated the promptness requirement of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                15.  With respect to the respondent Town Planner's provision of access to the letter on June 26, 1995, it is concluded that the respondent Town Planner did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., because such letter did not exist at the date of the June 15 and June 16, 1995 requests, but was written sometime thereafter.

 

                16.  The Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty in this case.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.  With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 3a., of the findings, above, and the provision of access to the bill, henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

                2.  The complaint is dismissed with respect to all of the other allegations raised in the complaint.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-202                                             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:

Kathy A. Velky

626 Washington Road

Woodbury, CT 06798

 

Woodbury Inland Wetlands Agency and Woodbury Town Planner

c/o Maureen Danehy Cox, Esq.

Carmody & Torrance

P.O. Box 1110

Waterbury, CT 06721-1110

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission