FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Sandra Clynch,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-111
East Windsor Elderly Commission,
Respondent July
27, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on May 16, 1988, at which time the
complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. At its regular meeting of March 16, 1988,
the respondent asked the complainant to refrain from tape-recording the
meeting. At that time, the respondent
unanimously passed a motion prohibiting the public from tape-recording its
meetings.
3. By letter of complaint dated March 23, 1988
and filed with the Commission on March 25, 1988, the complainant alleged the
respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by not allowing her to
tape-record its March 16, 1988 regular meeting.
4. By letter dated May 5, 1988 and filed with
the Commission on May 11, 1988, the complainant requested the imposition of a
civil penalty against the respondent and filed another complaint with the
Commission. The complainant requested
the Commission to consolidate the above-captioned case with her newly-filed
complaint and a previously-filed complaint.
5. The Commission denied the complainant's
motion to consolidate on the ground that the respondent was not provided with
sufficient notice to respond to complaints other than the one scheduled for the
May 16, 1988 hearing date.
6. At the hearing, the respondent conceded that
it violated §1-21a(a), G.S., by prohibiting the public from tape-recording its
meetings.
Docket #FIC 88-111 Page 2
7. It is found the respondent violated
§1-21a(a), G.S., by prohibiting the public from tape-recording its meetings and
by not allowing the complainant to tape-record its March 16, 1988 regular
meeting.
8. It is found, however, that subsequent to its
March 16, 1988 regular meeting, the respondent sought legal advice as to
whether the Freedom of Information Act expressly permitted the public to
tape-record its meetings.
9. It also is found the respondent held a
workshop on freedom of information laws on April 27, 1988.
10. It further is found that at its May 10. 1988
meeting, the respondent declared its vote prohibiting the public from
tape-recording its meetings null and void.
11. The Commission, under the circumstances
presented, declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondent.
The following order by
the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall henceforth act in
strict compliance with the requirements of §1-21a(a), G.S., regarding the
public's right to record, photograph or broadcast the meetings of a public
agency.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of July 27, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission