FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
William Towill
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-288
Plymouth Planning and Zoning Commission
Respondent March 14, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 14, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter filed July 14, 1989, the complainant alleged that the respondent held an illegal executive session June 22, 1989.
3. The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint alleging that the complainant was not aggrieved because he was not present at the meeting on June 22, 1989.
4. It is found that aggrievement is not a prerequisite to an appeal alleging violation of the Freedom of Information Act by a public agency.
5. It is found that the respondent held a meeting on June 22, 1989.
6. It is found that the vice chairman of the respondent moved for a recess without explanation, and the microphones were shut off.
7. It is found that during the recess the chairman, the vice chairman, and the town planner discussed procedure for turning the meeting over to the vice chairman to enable the chairman to make a motion concerning a subdivision called Williams Way, Section III.
#FIC 89-288 page two
8. It is found that while the discussion between the vice chairman, the chairman, and the planner was ongoing, a staff member took orders for coffee, and some of the members of the respondent had social conversations.
9. It is found that when the meeting was reconvened the chairman moved to approve the William's Way, Section III, subdivision subject to three conditions.
10. It is found that after the adoption of the motion on Williams Way, Section III, the vice-chairman stepped down as chairman.
11. It is found that in order to implement the policy of full public access to meetings, the discussion of procedure was not a proper subject for discussion during the recess, and that it should have been conducted during the public portion of the meeting.
12. The complainant has requested that a civil penalty be imposed.
13. It is found that the violation found, herein, is technical in nature, and that under the facts of the case a civil penalty is not warranted.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall hence forth comply with 1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 14, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
#FIC 89-288 page three
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:
WILLIAM TOWILL
c/o Richard E. Lacey, Esq.
Lacey and Ziogas
225 North Main Street
Bristol, CT 06010
PLYMOUTH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
c/o William J. Tracy, Jr., Esq.
43 Bellevue Avenue
P.O. Box 670
Bristol, CT 06010
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission