REEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Sidni K. Undercuffler,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-156

 

Watertown Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission, Watertown

Town Manager and Watertown Zoning Enforcement Officer,

 

                        Respondents                 March 9, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 7, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated June 1, 1993 and filed with the Commission on June 3, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents Watertown Conservation and Inland Wetlands ("CC/IW") Commission , Watertown Town Manager ("town manager") and Watertown Zoning Enforcement Officer ("zoning enforcement officer") violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to:

 

                        a.  provide prompt access to inspect the April 27, 1993 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service review report ("SCS report") concerning permit application #245 ("application #245");

 

                        b.  prepare and maintain minutes or other records of joint meetings or consultations held among staff members of the Watertown Planning and Zoning Commission ("P&Z commission"), the CC/IW commission, the Department of Public Works ("DPW") and project consultants;

 

Docket #FIC 93-156                           Page 2

 

                        c.  make available DPW inter-agency and intra-agency letters, opinions or recommendations concerning application #245;

 

                        d.  make available as of April 7, 28 and 30, 1993, the minutes of the public hearing held on March 11, 1993;

 

                        e.  make available as of April 28 and 30, 1993, the minutes of the public hearing held on April 8, 1993;

 

                        f.  make available as of May 25, 1993, the minutes of the special meeting held on April 29, 1993;

 

            3.  The complainant requests that the Commission declare null and void the respondent CC/IW commission's April 29, 1993 permit approval of application #245, and order public hearings on this issue re-opened.

 

            4.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., states that all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly or to receive a copy in accordance with the provisions of 1-15, G.S.

 

            5.  It is found that the respondents CC/IW commission and town manager are the agencies responsible for maintaining the CC/IW commission's records and not the respondent zoning enforcement officer.

 

            6.  It is also found that the respondents CC/IW commission and town manager do maintain records responsive to portions of the complainant's records request as described in paragraph 2a., 2d., 2e. and 2f., above.

 

            7.  It is therefore concluded that the records requested, as described in paragraph 2a., 2d., 2e. and 2f., above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            8.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that on April 28, 1993 the complainant requested of the respondents CC/IW commission and town manager access to inspect a file folder concerning application #245 which file folder contained the April 27, 1993 SCS report.

 

            9.  It is also found that the respondents complied with the April 28, 1993 request without delay.

 

            10.  Section 1-19(a), G. S., requires that each agency make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.

 

Docket #FIC 93-156                           Page 3

 

            11.  Section 1-18a(b), G.S., defines meeting as:

 

                        ... any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency ... to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.

 

            12.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b., above, it is found that the complainant failed to prove that the respondents CC/IW commission, town manager and zoning enforcement officer convened meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            13.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c., above, it is found that the complainant failed to prove that DPW inter-agency and intra-agency letters, opinions or recommendations exist concerning application #245.

 

            14.  Section 1-21(a), G. S., requires that the minutes of the regular and special meetings of public agencies be made available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.

 

            15.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2d., 2e., and above, it is found that the respondents CC/IW commission and town manager failed to make available for public inspection within seven days the minutes of the meetings of March 11, April 8, 1993 and April 29, 1993.

 

            16.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents CC/IW commission and town manager violated the minutes provision of 1-21(a), G. S.

 

            17.  The Commission declines to declare null and void the respondent CC/IW commission's permit approval of application #245.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended

 

Docket #FIC 93-156                           Page 4

 

on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint against the zoning enforcement officer is dismissed in its entirety.

 

            2.  The complaint against the CC/IW commission and town manager is dismissed with respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2a., 2b. and 2c., of the findings, above.

 

            3.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2d., 2e. and 2f, of the findings, above, the respondents CC/IW commission and town manager shall henceforth strictly comply with the minutes provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 9, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-156                           Page 5

 

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. Sidni Undercuffler

86 Hamilton Avenue

Watertown, CT 06795

 

Watertown Conservation and Inland Wetland Commission,

Watertown Town Manager and Watertown Zoning Enforcement Officer

c/o Charles D. Stauffacher, Esq.

Slavin & Stauffacher

P.O. Box A

Watertown, CT 06795

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission