FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

William L. Kuusela,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-73

 

Daniel W. Teper, Lisbon First Selectman,

 

                        Respondent                  September 9, 1992

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 20, 1992, 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 of complaint filed with this Commission on February 28, 1992, the complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties alleging that the respondent violated the FOI Act in the following ways with respect to tapes of the February 10, 1992 selectmen's meeting:

 

                        a. on February 13, 1992, he refused to accept a written request to save the tapes;

 

                        b. on February 13, 1992, he refused to save the tapes;

 

                        c. on February 14, 1992, he refused to accept a written request for the complainant to listen to the tapes;

 

                        d. on February 14, 1992, he refused to allow the complainant to listen to the tapes;

 

                        e. on February 14, 1992, he refused to provide the complainant with a copy of the tapes; and

 

                        f. on February 24, 1992, he refused in writing to grant the complainant access to the tapes.

 

            3.  It is found that with respect to the allegations outlined in pagagraghs 2a and 2c, above, the respondent in 

 

Docket #FIC 92-73                             Page 2

 

fact did accept the identified requests within a day after they were offered.

 

            4.  It is found that the town's administrative coordinator acts as recording secretary for the board of selectmen ("board"), but she is neither a member of the board nor does she have any decision-making authority for them.

 

            5.  It is found that the method of recording minutes for the board's meetings is by shorthand notes taken by the recording secretary.

 

            6.  It is found that after being challenged on the accuracy of her minutes, the recording secretary asked the respondent whether she could tape record some board meetings.

 

            7.  It is found that the respondent informed the recording secretary that she had to record the meeting proceedings by shorthand to formulate the minutes, but he did not deny her the right to record the meetings as a private citizen.

 

            8.  It is found that in fact the recording secretary took the minutes to the February 10, 1992 meeting in shorthand and then wrote the minutes out from those notes.

 

            9.  It is also found that she used her privately owned battery-run tape recorder and tapes at the February 10 meeting to record that meeting.

 

            10.  It is found that the recording secretary at all times personally retained the tapes in question and personally listened only to a few minutes worth of the tapes in question to verify that her equipment had operated properly.

 

            11.  It is also found that no other individual ever listened to the tapes in question including the respondent or any member of the board.

 

            12.  It is found that the respondent and the board of selectmen did not prepare, own or use the tapes in question, nor did they ever receive or retain them.

 

            13.  It is concluded that the tapes of the February 10, 1992 board of selectmen's meeting are not public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            14.  It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent is not in violation of the FOI Act.  Accordingly, the imposition of civil penalties is inappropriate.

 

            15.  It is also concluded that the complainant did not file his complaint in this matter frivilously, and accordingly, a civil

 

Docket #FIC 92-73                             Page 3

 

penalty imposition against the complainant is unwarranted. 

 

            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 September 9, 1992.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-73                             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:

William L. Kuusela

350 River Road

Lisbon, CT 06351

 

Daniel W.Teper, Lisbon First Selectman

c/o Attorney Michael Carey

Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast

22 Courthouse Square

Norwich, CT 06360

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission