FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Vincent Forino,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 88-180
City Clerk, City
of Waterbury and City of Waterbury,
Respondents November 9, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on August 22, 1988, 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:
1.
The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated January 23, 1986, the complainant filed a request
application with the respondent clerk for the purchase of property located
behind 2984 East Main Street.
3.
By letter dated April 22, 1986, the complainant forwarded to the
respondent clerk copies of his request application and his letter of January
23, 1986 and asked to be advised of the status of his application.
4.
By letter dated March 23, 1987, the complainant asked what steps were
and would be taken by the land sale committee of the board of aldermen
(hereinafter "land committee") on his request application.
5.
By letter dated June 5, 1987, the complainant asked the respondent clerk
to respond to his prior inquiries regarding the status of his request
application.
6.
By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on May 12,
1988, the complainant alleged that the respondent clerk failed to provide him
with personal notice of various meetings at which the sale of the property was
discussed and failed to provide him with "notice of sale" of the
property.
Docket #FIC
88-180
Page 2
7.
The complainant also requested the Commission to rescind the sale of the
property.
8.
By letter dated August 9, 1988, the respondents requested the imposition
of a civil penalty against the complainant.
9.
The respondents claim:
a. The Commission lacks jurisdiction over the
complaint because it was not filed within 30 days of an alleged violation.
b. The complainant failed to file a written
request to receive notice of meetings within the meaning of 1-21c, G.S.
c. Absent a written request filed pursuant to
1-21c, G.S., they were not obligated to provide the complainant with
personal notice by telephone or otherwise, of the meetings at which the
property in question was discussed.
d. They are not required to provide the
complainant with "notice of a sale" under the Freedom of Information
Act (hereinafter "FOIA").
10.
It is found that the land committee first met on August 24, 1987 to
discuss the request application of LD & L Realty.
11.
It is found that the land committee met on December 21, 1987 and
accepted the request application of LD & L Realty. Counsel for the respondent city then began
to process the appropriate paperwork for the closing on the property.
12.
It is found that the respondent city delivered the deed of the property
to LD & L Realty on April 12, 1988.
13.
It is found that the complainant became aware that the property had been
sold to LD & L Realty when he spoke to the respondent clerk on May 2, 1988.
14.
With respect to the claim that the respondents failed to provide the
complainant with notice of meetings pursuant to 1-21c, G.S., it is found
that such meetings were held more than 30 days prior to the filing of the
complaint.
Docket #FIC
88-180
Page 3
15.
The Hearing Officer notes that the complainant did not allege that the
various meetings held regarding the property were secret or unnoticed meetings.
16.
It is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the portion
of the complaint described in paragraph 14, above, since the letter of
complaint was not filed with the Commission within the prescribed time limits
set forth in 1-21i(b), G.S.
17.
It is found, however, that the Commission does have jurisdiction over
the portion of the complaint concerning the respondents' failure to provide the
complainant with "notice of sale."
18.
It is found that there is no provision in the FOIA requiring an agency
to notify, by telephone or otherwise, applicants or their attorneys of a sale
of property.
19.
It is concluded that the respondents' failure to provide the complainant
with "notice of sale" did not constitute a violation of the Freedom
of Information Act.
20.
The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty against the
complainant.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of November 9, 1988.
ÿ
Catherine H.
Lynch
Acting Clerk of the Commission