FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Gretchen Chipperini,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-198
Historic District Commission of the Town of Groton,
Respondent December 8, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 15, 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 July 14, 1993, and filed with the Commission on July 19, 1993, the complainant alleged that at publicly held regular meetings which followed public hearings held on October 13 and 27, 1992, the respondent improperly discussed signs designating certain sections of the Town of Groton as a historic district.
3. Specifically, the complainant claimed that the historic district signs were not on the agendas available before either meeting, nor was the discussion of the signs properly added to the meeting agendas, in accordance with 1-21, G.S. The complainant requested that the Commission order the removal of the signs and alternatively, that the votes taken at one or both meetings approving expenditures for the creation and purchase of the signs be voided.
4. There is no dispute that agendas and minutes were filed for the respondent's regular meetings held on October 13 and 27, 1992.
Docket #FIC 93-198 Page 2
5. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., in pertinent part states:
Any person denied the right to ...attend any meeting of a public agency ...may appeal therefrom to the [Commission], by filing a notice of appeal with said [C]ommission. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.... (Emphasis added.)
6. It is found that the October 13 and 27, 1992 meetings held by the respondent were not "secret or unnoticed" within the meaning 1-21i(b)(1), G.S.
7. It is found that the complainant failed to file her complaint in accordance with the time provisions of 1-21i(b)(1), G.S.
8. It is therefore concluded that this Commission lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.
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. The Commission notes that at the hearing on this matter the respondent conceded that the proper motion had not been made at either meeting to add the matter of the historic district signs to either meeting agenda. In the interest of good government the respondent agreed to make the issue of the historic district signs an agenda item for its October 26, 1993 meeting, and to allow members of the public to comment on issues related to the signs.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 8, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-198 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:
Ms. Gretchen Chipperini
23 Library Street
Mystic, CT 06355
Historic District Commission of Groton
c/o Mr. Mark W. Tebbets
45 Fort Hill Road
Groton, CT 06340-4394
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the CommissionFREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Gretchen Chipperini,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-198
Historic District Commission of the Town of Groton,
Respondent December 8, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 15, 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 July 14, 1993, and filed with the Commission on July 19, 1993, the complainant alleged that at publicly held regular meetings which followed public hearings held on October 13 and 27, 1992, the respondent improperly discussed signs designating certain sections of the Town of Groton as a historic district.
3. Specifically, the complainant claimed that the historic district signs were not on the agendas available before either meeting, nor was the discussion of the signs properly added to the meeting agendas, in accordance with 1-21, G.S. The complainant requested that the Commission order the removal of the signs and alternatively, that the votes taken at one or both meetings approving expenditures for the creation and purchase of the signs be voided.
4. There is no dispute that agendas and minutes were filed for the respondent's regular meetings held on October 13 and 27, 1992.
Docket #FIC 93-198 Page 2
5. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., in pertinent part states:
Any person denied the right to ...attend any meeting of a public agency ...may appeal therefrom to the [Commission], by filing a notice of appeal with said [C]ommission. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.... (Emphasis added.)
6. It is found that the October 13 and 27, 1992 meetings held by the respondent were not "secret or unnoticed" within the meaning 1-21i(b)(1), G.S.
7. It is found that the complainant failed to file her complaint in accordance with the time provisions of 1-21i(b)(1), G.S.
8. It is therefore concluded that this Commission lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction in this matter.
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. The Commission notes that at the hearing on this matter the respondent conceded that the proper motion had not been made at either meeting to add the matter of the historic district signs to either meeting agenda. In the interest of good government the respondent agreed to make the issue of the historic district signs an agenda item for its October 26, 1993 meeting, and to allow members of the public to comment on issues related to the signs.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 8, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-198 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:
Ms. Gretchen Chipperini
23 Library Street
Mystic, CT 06355
Historic District Commission of Groton
c/o Mr. Mark W. Tebbets
45 Fort Hill Road
Groton, CT 06340-4394
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission