FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

City of Norwalk

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-429

 

Board of Mediation and Arbitration, State of Connecticut, Department of Labor

 

                        Respondent                  April 10, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 25, 1991 at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented 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 September 4, 1990 and filed with the Commission on September 7, 1990, the complainant appealed the respondent's denial of his right to tape record proceedings conducted by the respondent.

 

            3.  The complainant contends that the respondent maintains a practice and policy of not allowing its proceedings to be tape recorded, and although the complainant has not been denied the right to tape record the respondent's proceedings since September of 1988, he contends that the policy itself constitutes a denial of his rights under 1-21i, G.S.

 

            4.  However, 1-21i, G.S., provides that any person who has been denied any right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal to the Commission and that the "notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial".

 

Docket #FIC 90-429                           Page 2

 

            4.  It is found that there was no denial of any right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act within the thirty day mandate of 1-21i, G.S., since the complainant's last stated attempt to tape record the respondent's proceedings occurred two years ago.

 

            5.  Therefore, it is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over this complaint.

 

            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 regular meeting of April 10, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-429                           Page 3

 

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:

CITY OF NORWALK

c/o M. Jeffry Spahjr, Esq.

City Hall

P.O. Box 798

Norwalk, CT 06856-0798

 

BOARD OF MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

c/o Laurie Adler

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission