FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Edwin Baumer,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-219
Newtown Zoning Commission,
Respondent April 24, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on February 6, 1996, 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 June 27, 1995 and filed with the Commission on June 29,
1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent
violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act with respect to a
hearing held on June 13, 1995 by:
a. reconvening
a closed hearing without proper notice;
b. failing
to record the votes taken; and
c. improperly
convening in executive session.
3. It is
found that the respondent held a hearing on June 13, 1995 (hereinafter
"the hearing"), and that the hearing constitutes a
"meeting" within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
4. With
respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found
that during the hearing the respondent recessed and later reconvened.
5. The
complainant contends that the respondent banged a gavel, closed the hearing,
continued such hearing to July 10, 1995 and subsequently improperly conducted
business after such hearing was closed.
Docket #FIC 95-219 Page 2
6. It is
found that during the hearing the respondent suggested continuing the hearing
to July 10, 1995, however, the respondent decided not to continue and instead
the hearing proceeded following a recess.
7. It is
found that the complainant did not leave the room in which the hearing was held
and observed the entire hearing at all times.
8. It is
concluded that the hearing was not continued within the meaning of 1-21e,
G.S.
9. With
respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2b., above, it is found
that the respondent voted on the library issue and that such vote is recorded
in the respondent's June 13, 1995 minutes, which indicate "the application
was unanimously approved with a stipulation."
10. With
respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2c., above, it is found
that the respondent did not convene in executive session during the June 13,
1995 hearing.
11. It is
therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate any provisions of the
FOI Act.
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 April 24, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-219 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:
Edwin Baumer
c/o Randall J. Carreira, Esq.
Box 373
Route 67
Bridgewater, CT 06752
Newtown Zoning Commission
c/o Donald A. Mitchell, Esq.
10 Harmony Street
Danbury, CT 06810
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission