FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
William A. Oppenheimer and
Kathleen F. Oppenheimer,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 87-313
Diane Taylor, Chairman, John
Hirschauer, Doris Almgren, Town of Redding Planning Commission and Stanley
Boehm, Land-Use Coordinator of the Town of Redding,
Respondents March
9, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on December 3, 1987, at which time the complainants 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:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of
complaint filed October 17, 1987, the complainants alleged that the respondents
held an illegal meeting September 30, 1987 and that the respondents denied them
access to a tape recording of that meeting.
3. The
complainants alleged that the respondents failed to file a notice of the
meeting and subsequently denied them access to a tape recording of the meeting.
4. The
respondents alleged that no meeting was held and, therefore, no notice was
required.
5. The respondents
claimed further that no tape recording of the meeting had been made.
6. It is found
that, at about 6 p.m., September 30, 1987,
the respondents gathered to consider an application for subdivision, and
after brief discussion, the application under consideration was withdrawn.
7.
It
is found that the gathering was a special meeting within the meaning of §1-21,
G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-313 page
two
8. It is found
that no action was taken at the September 30, 1987 meeting.
9. It is found
that the complainant, William Oppenheimer, had incorrect information about the
time for the meeting, and that, when he questioned the coordinator for the
respondents about the time of the
meeting, his misinformation was not corrected.
10. It is found that the meeting did not comply with the
requirements of §1-21, G.S. because no notice of the meeting was filed and the
minutes of the meeting were filed late.
11. It is found that, although the complainants did not
arrive at the meeting until after it was concluded, the failure of the
respondents to comply with §1-21, G.S. was not the reason they did not arrive
at 6:00 P.M.
12. It is found that the complainants and the coordinator
for the respondents were involved in lengthy negotiations with respect to the
complainants' desire to have access to the tape recording of the meeting.
13. It is found that the delay and difficulty which
characterized the negotiations were the result of the inadvertent failure of
the respondents to tape the meeting in accordance with their usual practice.
14. It is found that, since the respondents have no tape
recording of the meeting, there is no violation of either §§1-15 or 1-19(a),
G.S. arising from their failure to provide such a tape recording to the
complainants.
15. The complainants seek a civil penalty.
16. It is found under the circumstances of this case that
a civil penalty is not appropriate.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondents shall comply henceforth with the requirements of §1-21, G.S.
2. The
respondents are urged to become better informed about the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act, since failure to comply not only deprives the
public of important rights of access but also could lead to the imposition of
civil penalties as high as $1,000.00 for each violation.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of March 9, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission