FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Vincent T. Stebbins, Carolyn Stebbins and Stebco Printers,

Inc.,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 91-208

 

Superintendent, Watertown Water and Sewer Authority,

 

                        Respondent                  January 8, 1992

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 17, 1991, 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 July 23, 1991 and filed July 24, 1991 the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that complainant Vincent T. Stebbins requested from the respondent copies of the minutes of the Watertown Water and Sewer Authority (hereinafter "Authority") meetings of June 25, 1991 and July 8, 1991 and that the respondent failed to provide the requested documents.

 

            3.  The hearing on this matter was limited to the request for the minutes of the June 25, 1991 meeting.

 

            4.  The Authority is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18(a), G.S., subject to the provisions of the FOIA and the respondent is responsible for the maintenance of Authority records.

 

Docket #FIC 91-208                           Page 2

 

            5.  It is found that on June 25, 1991 the Authority held a special meeting and voted to grant the complainant's application to hook up a sewer pipe to the main sewer line in order to  service the complainants' business, but requiring the complainants to use ductile iron pipe.

 

            6.  It is found that the complainants twice requested from the respondent a copy of the minutes of the June 25, 1991 special Authority meeting, three days and ten days after said meeting, but that they were not provided because they were not yet prepared.

 

            7.  It is also found that it is the practice of the Authority to tape record its meetings and to thereafter make the tape recordings of its proceedings available to the public.

 

            8.  It is also found that although the Authority ultimately prepares written minutes of its proceedings, there is no specific timeframe when minutes are prepared.

 

            9.  It is also found that the minutes of the June 25, 1991 meeting were hand delivered to counsel for the complainants on October 9, 1991.

 

            10.  It is also found that the Watertown Town Manager is the principal administrative officer of the Authority and is responsible for the preparation of Authority minutes.

 

            11.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides that public agencies "shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of their meetings."

 

            12.  Section 1-21, G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

            "...the votes of each member of any public agency

            upon any issue before such public agency shall be

            reduced to writing and made available for public

            inspection...and shall also be recorded in the

            minutes of the session at which taken, which

            minutes shall be available for public inspection

            within seven days of the session to which they

            refer."

 

            13.  Although the Authority violated 1-21, G.S., by failing to reduce the votes of Authority members to writing within 48 hours after its June 25, 1991 special meeting and by failing to make available to the public the minutes for its meeting within seven days, it is concluded that the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-208                           Page 3

 

lacks jurisdiction over the Authority because the complaint was filed against the respondent Superintendent who is not responsible for the preparation of Authority minutes.

 

            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.

 

            2.  Although the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the Authority in this case, the Commission urges the respondent to share this decision with the Authority so that the Authority may avoid the imposition of sanctions in the future, in the event it does not provide access to its minutes in accordance with   1-21, G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 8, 1992.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-208                           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:

Vincent T. Stebbins, Carolyn M. Stebbins, Stebco Printers, Inc.

c/o Charles D. Stauffacher, Esq.

48 Woodruff Avenue

P.O. Box A

Watertown, CT 06795

 

Superintendent, Watertown Water and Sewer Athority

c/o Franklin G. Pilicy, Esq.

Watertown Town Attorney

P.O. Box 230

Middlebury, CT 06762

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission