FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Richard Woodburn,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-11
David Pattee, Chairman,
Redding Conservation
Commission; and Redding
Conservation Commission,
Respondents December 13, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 9 and October 11, 1995, at which times the complainant and the
respondents 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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is found that on December 17, 1994
the respondents assembled at 584 Redding Road ("Stergue property"),
and at 10:30 a.m. convened a site inspection meeting ("site
meeting"), which had been properly noticed as a public meeting.
3. By letter
of complaint dated January 16, 1995, and filed with this Commission on January
17, 1995, the complainant alleged: (a) that the respondents failed to conduct
an orderly site meeting in violation of 1-21h, G.S., and (b) that the
respondents impermissibly conditioned future site walks of the Stergue property
on access from the complainant's adjoining property. The complainant requested civil penalties be levied against the
respondents.
4. It
is found that the complainant and his attorney, Nancy Burton, went to the
Stergue property to attend the site meeting.
Docket #FIC 95-11 Page
2
5. It
is found that immediately upon the arrival of the complainant and his counsel
an incident ensued involving them, Stergue, and the tenants of his property,
the Harkers.
6. It
is found that Stergue and the Harkers sought to prevent the complainant and his
counsel from coming on the Stergue property to attend the site meeting.
7. It
is found that the respondents were present during the entire incident and did
not intervene.
8. The
complainant and his counsel allege that they were assaulted during the incident
by Stergue and the Harkers.
9. It
is found that the police were called to the Stergue property on the morning of
the site meeting and arrived at approximately 10:40 a.m. The issue of whether or not the complainant
and his counsel were assaulted during the incident is a police question, and
not properly before this Commission.
10. Section
1-21h, G.S., concerning the conduct of public meetings states, in pertinent
part, that:
[i]n the event that any meeting of a
public agency is interrupted by any person or group of persons so as to render
the orderly conduct of such meeting unfeasible and order cannot be restored by
the removal of individuals who are wilfully interrupting the meeting, the
members of the agency conducting the meeting may order the meeting room cleared
and continue in session. . . .
11. It
is found that the respondents canceled the site meeting at approximately 10:35
a.m. because of the ruckus.
12. The
complainant alleges that pursuant to 1-21h, G.S., the respondents should
have intervened to restore order to the site meeting because their failure to
do so resulted in his inability to attend the meeting with his counsel.
13. It
is found that upon the facts of this case the respondents prudently terminated
the site meeting since removal of the Harkers and/or Stergue, the tenants and
landowner of the Stergue property, would have undoubtedly escalated tensions
and proven difficult.
Docket #FIC 95-11 Page
3
14. It
is therefore concluded that the provisions of 1-21, G.S., were not
violated by the respondents during the site meeting.
15. With
respect to the complainant's allegation described in paragraph 2(b) of the
findings, above, it is found that since the site meeting requested by the complainant's
attorney was abruptly canceled, the respondents suggested that another site
meeting be scheduled with access to the Stergue property from the complainant's
adjacent property.
16. The
Commission, however, lacks jurisdiction to make a determination about the
propriety or legality of the respondents' request that a future site walk of
the Stergue property occur by way of the complainant's adjoining property.
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 December 13, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-11 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:
Richard Woodburn
c/o Nancy Burton, Esq.
147 Cross Highway
Redding Ridge, CT 06876
David Pattee, Chairman,
Redding Conservation Commission and
Redding Conservation
Commission
c/o Michael N. LaVelle, Esq.
Pullman & Comley
850 Main Street
P.O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission