FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Fred Radford,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-215
Clerk, Zoning
Board of Appeals, Clerk, Planning and Zoning Commission and First Selectman of
the Town of Trumbull,
Respondents November 18, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on September 4, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
matter, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on August 4, 1986 the complainant
alleged that the minutes of the zoning board of appeals's meeting of July 2,
1986 and the minutes of the planning and zoning commission's meetings of July
9, 1986 and July 16, 1986 had not been "transcribed." The complainant requested the imposition of
a civil penalty.
3. All
minutes in question had been prepared and placed on file as of the date of
hearing. The respondents concede that
the minutes were not prepared within the time limits of 1-21(a), G.S.
4. On
July 14, 1986 the zoning board of appeals placed on file with the town clerk a
"notice of action" indicating its disposition of variance requests
considered at its July 2, 1986 meeting.
The notice of action was dated July 7, 1986. Also submitted to the town clerk on July 14, 1986, July 15, 1986
and July 22, 1986 were letters to those persons whose requests had been
considered which described more fully the board's actions.
Docket #FIC
86-215 Page Two
5. On
July 18, 1986 the planning and zoning commission placed on file with the town
clerk a "notice of action" indicating its disposition of the
applications for subdivision plans considered at its July 9, 1986 meeting. Attached to the "notice" were
letters, dated July 17, 1986, to those persons whose applications had been
denied which described the reasons for the commission's actions. The notice itself was on file in the office
of the planning and zoning commission on or about July 11, 1986.
6. The
respondents claim that tape recordings of the meetings in question were
available following each meeting for persons interested in reviewing the
proceedings. The respondents also claim
that the notices of action placed on file with the town clerk complied with the
requirements of 1-21(a), G.S. regarding minutes. Such notices were also published in a newspaper within 15 days of
the meetings to which they referred.
7. It
is found that the existence of tape recordings of the meetings in question did
not satisfy the minutes requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
8. The
notice of action placed on file by the zoning board of appeals with respect to
its July 2, 1986 meeting did not indicate the votes of each of its members on
the issues before it and did not indicate the date of the meeting at which the
action was taken.
9. It
is concluded that the respondent clerk of the zoning board of appeals failed to
prepare and make available for public inspection in a timely manner minutes of
the board's July 2, 1986 meeting, in violation of 1-21(a), G.S.
10. The
notice of action placed on file by the planning and zoning commission with
respect to its July 9, 1986 meeting did not indicate the votes of each of its
members on the issues before it.
11. It
is concluded that the respondent clerk of the planning and zoning commission
failed to prepare and make available for public inspection in a timely manner
minutes of either the July 9, 1986 or July 16, 1986 meetings of the planning
and zoning commission, in violation of 1-21(a), G.S.
12. The
Commission notes that with a slightly greater attention to detail, the notices
of action prepared by the respondents would have met the requirements of
1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S. regarding the keeping of minutes. The Commission, therefore, declines to
impose a civil penalty as requested by the complainant.
Docket #FIC
86-215 Page
Three
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent clerk of the zoning board of appeals and the respondent clerk of the
planning and zoning commission shall henceforth act in strict compliance with
the requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S. regarding the timely
preparation of minutes of meetings.
Failure to so comply in the future may result in the imposition of civil
penalties of up to $1,000.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of November 18, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission