FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Edward A. Peruta,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-69

 

Wethersfield Board Of Tax Review,

 

                        Respondent                  September 8, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 6, 1993, at which time the complainant 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 of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on March 19, 1993, the complainant alleged that on March 18, 1993, the respondent held a meeting at which he was denied the opportunity to videotape the discussion.

 

            3.  The respondent concedes that on March 18, 1993, it held a public meeting (hereinafter "March meeting"), and at that March meeting the complainant set up his video camera and tripod in a location that would not interfere with the proceedings.

 

            4.  The respondent concedes that the complainant was asked to refrain from videotaping the March meeting.

 

            5.  The respondent argues that the taxpayer who was present at the March meeting to appeal his commercial tax assessment vehemently objected to making the appeal on camera, citing his right to confidentiality as the basis for the objection.

 

Docket #FIC 93-69                             Page 2

 

            6.  The respondent also argues that although it adjourned the March meeting after refusing to let the complainant videotape the meeting, it did so in an attempt to get an opinion from the town attorney on the best way to proceed.

 

            7.         It is found that the respondent did not reconvene the March meeting, thus depriving the complainant of the opportunity to videtape the proceeding.

 

            8.  It is found that at the time of the March meeting the respondent had no rules or policy governing the recording, broadcasting or photographing of its public meetings.

 

            9.         Section 1-21a(b), G.S., states that in the absence of rules governing the recording, broadcasting or photographing of a public agency's public meetings, "...such recording, photography or the use of such radio and television equipment shall be permitted as provided in subsection [1-21a](a).".

 

            10.  Section 1-21a(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

            At any meeting of a public agency which is open to the public, ... proceedings of such public agency may be recorded, photographed, broadcast or recorded for broadcast.... Any recording ... equipment may be so located within the meeting room as to permit the recording, or the photographing of the proceedings of such public agency.  The photographer or broadcaster ... shall be required to handle the ... recording as inconspicuously as possible and in a such a manner as not to disturb the proceedings of the public agency....

 

            11.  It is found that any expectation of confidentiality that the taxpayer present at the March meeting may have had, neither provides a bar to the complainant's right to videotape the March meeting, nor establishes, in itself, either a basis for closing the meeting to the public, or a disturbance of the March meeting sufficient to warrant the disallowance of videotaping by the respondent.

 

            12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent was wrongfully denied his right to videotape the March meeting as required by 1-21a(a), G.S.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

Docket #FIC 93-69                             Page 3

 

            1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the provisions for recording, broadcasting or photographing its public meetings, as set forth in 1-21a(a)  and 1-21a(b), G.S.

 

            2.  The Commission notes that on or about April 13, 1993, the respondent adopted rules governing the recording, broadcasting or photographing of its public meetings, as permitted by 1-21a(b), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 8, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-69                             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:

Edward A. Peruta

P. O. Box 307

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

 

Wethersfield Board of Tax Review

c/o Atty. Anna V. Crawford

Updike, Kelly & Spellacy

One State Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission