FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Gus Laskos,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-141
Marc J. Garofalo, Beverly Moran, William Conlon, Jr., Robert Cerritelli, Joseph T. Hassan, John McCormick, Michael Barbieri, Antionette Tilquist, Richard Dunne, Edwin Altimirano and Derby Board of Apportionment and Taxation,
Respondent December 11, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 16, 1991 and September 13, 1991, at which times the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
At the conclusion of the hearing on August 16, 1991, the respondent was put on notice that each of its members could be subject to civil penalties and should be so notified that this issue would be considered at the continued hearing into the above-referenced matter to be held in September 1991.
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 with the Commission on May 24, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent conducted an unnoticed meeting on May 7, 1991, and also failed to have minutes of this meeting available within seven days. The complainant also alleged that the respondent met on unspecified dates "almost every night for about seven weeks" but posted notices for only five of such meetings and filed no minutes for them. The complainant also requested that a "maximum penalty" be levied against the respondent.
3. At the hearing on this complaint, the complainant limited his complaint to only the issues of the respondent's failures to post notice for, and file minutes concerning, the May 7, 1991 meeting of the respondent.
Docket # FIC 91-141 Page 2
4. It is found that on May 7, 1991, the respondent conducted a special meeting for which no notice was posted at the town hall and for which no minutes were available to the public within seven days of the May 7, 1991 meeting.
5. The respondent claimed that the May 7, 1991 meeting was actually a continuation of a meeting held on May 6, 1991.
6. The respondent also claimed that its meeting procedures were in compliance with its city charter, and its chairman claimed that it is unnecessary to keep minutes for preliminary budget workshops.
7. It is found that the purpose of the May 6, 1991 meeting was to hear public testimony concerning the adopted preliminary estimates for the 1991-1992 budget.
8. It is also found that the May 7, 1991 meeting consisted not of public testimony but rather of a general discussion by members of the respondent concerning the input received from the public at the meeting held May 6, 1991, and that the format of the May 7, 1991 meeting was in the nature of a debate.
9. It is concluded that the meeting of May 7, 1991 was not properly noticed as an adjourned meeting or continued hearing in accordance with 1-21d and 1-21e, G.S.
10. It is also concluded that the respondent's failure to make available minutes of its May 7, 1991 meeting is in violation of 1-21(a), G.S., which statutory obligation cannot be diminished by municipal charter or local rule.
11. The Commission also takes notice of its record and final decision in contested case docket #FIC 90-204.
12. It is further concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent's violations of the Freedom of Information Act are without reasonable grounds within the meaning of 1-21i(b), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket # FIC 91-141 Page 3
1. The chairman of the respondent shall, within thirty days of the date of notice of the final decision in this matter, be personally responsible for submitting to the Freedom of Information Commission a civil penalty in the amount of $25.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 11, 1991.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket # FIC 91-141 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:
Gus Laskos Joseph T. Hassan
18 North Avenue 273 Derby Avenue
Derby, CT 06418 Derby, CT 06418
Derby Board of Apportionment and Taxation John McCormick
c/o Atty. Francis A. Teodosio 110 Atwater Avenue
Derby Corporation Counsel Derby, CT 06418
40 Franklin Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
Marc J. Garofalo Michael Barbieri
52 Selma Avenue 37 Paugassett Road
Derby, CT 06418 Derby, CT 06418
Beverly Moran Antoinette Tilquist
91 Academy Hill Road 294 Derby Avenue
Derby, CT 06418 Derby, CT 06418
William Conlon, Jr. Richard Dunne
30 East Ninth Street 6 Lakeview Terrace
Derby, CT 06418 Derby, CT 06418
Robert Cerritelli Edwin Altimirano
16 Belleview Drive 235 Caroline Street
Derby, CT 06418 Derby, CT 06418
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission