FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Charles E. Zemko and Salem Citizens for an Informed Electorate, Inc.,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-300

 

Salem Board of Selectmen,

 

                        Respondent                  March 27, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 30, 1990, at which time the complainants 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 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 dated June 30, 1990, and delivered to the respondent at its regular meeting of July 2, 1990, the complainants requested advance written notice of the respondent's special meetings in accordance with 1-21c, G.S., as well as a brief advisory explaining circumstances for lateness when providing notice less than seven days in advance.

 

            3.  By letter filed with this Commission on August 15, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondent failed to comply with 1-21c, G.S., with respect to its special meetings dated July 19, 1990, July 27, 1990, August 10, 1990 and August 13, 1990.

 

            4.  It is found that at its regular meeting of September 4, 1990, the respondent considered the complainants' request, after which time the respondent began to so comply.

 

            5.  It is found that the complainants did not receive advance written notice of the respondent's meetings conducted on July 19, July 27, August 10 and August 13, 1990.

 

            6.  It is concluded that the complainants' request for 

 

Docket #FIC 90-300                           Page 2

 

advance written notice of the respondent's special meetings is an administrative request requiring no further action or decision by the respondent prior to compliance, and accordingly, the complainants' request for written notice was effective after the respondent's July 2 receipt of such.

 

            7.  It is concluded that the respondent's failure to issue notice of its July and August 1990 special meetings to the complainants is in violation of 1-21c, G.S.

 

            8.  At hearing, the complainants claimed that they are entitled to seven day's notice in advance of the respondent's meetings and requested the imposition of fines claiming that the respondent had no reasonable grounds for its denial.

 

            9.  At hearing, the respondent claimed that the complainants' reading of 1-21c, G.S., is too broad, and that where it is impracticable to give seven day's notice, shorter notice is acceptable.  The respondent also claimed that the statute imposes no requirement that the respondent explain its reasons for giving less than seven day's notice of public meetings.

 

            10.  It is concluded that 1-21c, G.S., provides no requirement that the respondent provide the complainants with an advisory concerning the reason for calling special meetings less than seven days but more than 24 hours in advance of meeting.  Accordingly, the respondent's failure to provide an advisory as requested by the complainants does not constitute a violation of the FOI Act.

 

            11.  The Commission declines to impose civil penalties against the respondent under the facts of this case as a matter of discretion.

 

            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 strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21c, G.S., when such requests are made of the respondent.

 

            2.  With respect to the complainants' request for a brief advisory as identified in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, that portion of the complaint is dismissed.

 

Docket #FIC 90-300                           Page 3

 

            3.  The Commission points out to the respondent that if questions arise concerning the validity of FOI Act requests, the Commission's staff is available for telephone consultation during regular business hours.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-300                           Page 4

 

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:

CHARLES E. ZEMKO AND SALEM CITIZENS FOR AN INFORMED ELECTORATE, INC.

228 Hartford Road

Salem, CT 06415

 

SALEM BOARD OF SELECTMEN

c/o John W. Butts, Esq.

P.O. Box 270

Colchester, CT 06415

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission