FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

James M. Ray,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1996-144

David Sessions, Chairman, Town Hall

Building Committee, Town of New Hartford;

Nicholas Labbadia; Roxanne Carroll; Jack

Hoffman; Ken Kimmerle; Sam Marr; Daria Hart;

and Town Hall Building Committee, Town of

New Hartford,

Respondents November 13, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 19, 1996, 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. By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on May 1, 1996, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

a. holding an illegal meeting on March 5, 1996;

b. failing to give twenty-four hours notice of the meeting, described in a) above;

c. failing to post an agenda for the meeting, described in a) above;

d. failing to file agendas, notices and minutes for the respondent building committee; and

Docket #FIC 1996-144 Page 2

e. failing to file minutes for the respondent building committee within seven days of the meeting, described in a) above.

2. The complainant requested in his letter of complaint that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents and require the Board of Selectmen of the town of New Hartford (“Board of Selectmen”) to attend an FOI workshop.

3. Section 1-18a(a), G.S., defines “public agency” to include any authority or official of any city or town, including any committee created by any such office, agency, board, authority or official.

4. It is found that the Board of Selectmen created the respondent Building Committee on February 13, 1996.

5. It is concluded that the respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

6. It is found that the respondents held a meeting during the first week of March 1996, described in the Board of Selectmen’s minutes of March 12, 1996, as being held on “March 5, 1996”, (hereinafter “the meeting”).

7. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

Any person…wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency…may appeal therefrom to the freedom of information commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. 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.

8. It is found that the complainant received notice in fact on March 12, 1996 that the respondents held the meeting.

Docket #FIC 1996-144 Page 3

9. With respect to the allegations, described in paragraph 1a., 1b., 1c. and 1e., above, it is found that the complainant failed to file this appeal within the requisite time period set forth in §1-21i(b)(1), G.S.

10. It is therefore, concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the complaint with respect to the allegations described in paragraph 1a., 1b., 1c. and 1e., above.

11. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 1d., above, it is found that on April 3, 1996, the complainant requested from the town clerk copies of all of the respondent building committee’s agendas, notices and minutes.

12. It is found that the town clerk denied the request indicating that she did not have any records responsive to the request.

13. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

Each such [public] agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings. [Emphasis added.]

14. Section 1-21(a), G.S., further requires that: minutes of regular and special meetings be available within seven days of the meeting to which they refer; agendas for regular meetings be made available to the public and filed not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer; and notices of special meetings be filed not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting.

15. At the hearing into this matter, the respondents conceded that they did not prepare or file agendas, notices and minutes for meetings held prior to April, 1996, however, agendas, notices and minutes have been prepared and filed for meetings held since April, 1996.

16. It is therefore, concluded that the respondents violated §§1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., when they failed to comply with the minutes, agenda and notice requirements for meetings of the respondent building committee held prior to April, 1996.

17. It is found that the violation described in paragraph 6, above, was not without reasonable grounds.

18. Accordingly, the request for civil penalties is denied.

Docket #FIC 1996-144 Page 4

19. With respect to the complainant’s request that the Board of Selectmen be required to attend an FOI workshop, described in paragraph 2, above, it is found that such board is not a respondent in this case and has not been found in violation of the FOI Act. Accordingly, the requested relief would not appropriately rectify the denial, as described in paragraph 16, above.

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

1. With respect to the allegation, described in paragraph 1d. of the findings, above, henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with §§1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.

2. With respect to the allegations, described in paragraph 1a., 1b., 1c. and 1e. of the findings, above, the complaint is dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 13, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 1996-144 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:

James M. Ray

101 Behrens Road

New Hartford, CT 06057

David Sessions, Chairman, Town Hall Building Committee, Town of New Hartford;

Nicholas Labbadia; Roxanne Carroll; Jack Hoffman; Ken Kimmerle; Sam Marr; Daria Hart; and Town Hall Building Committee, Town of New Hartford,

c/o Richard L. Street, Esq.

Carmody & Torrance

P.O. Box 1110

Waterbury, CT 06721

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FD 1996-144