FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 6, 2007, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed March 22, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to post timely notice of a budget workshop.

 

3.  It is found that the respondent Common Council held a special meeting on March 7, 2007 beginning at 7:15 p.m.

 

4.  It is found that notice of the special meeting was stamped received for record by the respondent City Clerk on March 7, 2007 at 8:53 a.m.

 

5.  Section 1-225(d) provides in relevant part:

 

Notice of each special meeting of every public agency  … shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof … in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state ….

 

6.  The respondent Common Council contends that the notice was actually delivered to the City Clerk sometime between 4:00 and 4:30 p.m. on March 6, 2007.  The respondent Common Council further contends that its efforts to deliver timely notice to the City Clerk were delayed by the illness of the Clerk of the Common Council, who is also the City Clerk, and that the Clerk had to engage others to complete the task of delivering the notice.

 

7.  Although there appear to have been circumstances explaining the delay in delivering the notice, it is found that the respondents failed to overcome the presumption that the notice was received at the time and date it was stamped received.

 

8.  It is concluded that the respondents violated §1-225(a), G.S.

 

 

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 §1-225(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 12, 2008.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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:

 

John Gogliettino

129 Lake Place North

Danbury, CT 06810

           

City Clerk, City of Danbury; and

Common Council, City of Danbury

c/o Laszlo L. Pinter, Esq.

Deputy Corporation Counsel

Office of the Corporation Counsel

155 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-171FD/paj/3/17/2008