FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Bradshaw Smith,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-613
State of Connecticut, Connecticut Public Transportation Commission
		Respondent	February 28, 2001

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 8, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter dated and filed November 13, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the Connecticut Department of Transportation in Newington (“CDOT”) violated the Freedom of Information Act by requiring him as a condition to attend a November 2, 2000 meeting of the Connecticut Public Transportation Commission (“CPTC”) to print his name and affiliation on  a) a CPTC attendance sheet b) a CDOT security log sheet and  c) print his name on a name tag and wear it while in the building.  The complainant requested that a civil penalty be imposed in this matter.

 

            3.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subsection (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”

 

            4.  Section 1-225(e), G.S., [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.] further provides: “[N]o member of the public shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of any such body, to register the member’s name, or furnish other information, or complete a questionnaire or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to the member’s attendance.”  [Emphasis added.]

 

            5.  It is found that the meeting at issue was held by the respondent on November 2, 2000 at the CDOT building in Newington (hereinafter “meeting”). 

  

            6.   It is found that the complainant was permitted to attend, and did in fact attend the meeting, without printing his name and affiliation on the respondent’s attendance sheet, CDOT’s security log, or completing and wearing a name tag.

 

            7.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not “require” that the complainant, as a condition of attending the meeting, register his name, or furnish other information, or otherwise fulfill any condition precedent to the complainant being allowed to attend the meeting, within the meaning of §1-225(e), G.S., [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.].

 

            8.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-225(e), G.S., [formerly §1-225(a), G.S.].

 

            9.  It is found that the CDOT as a security measure generally requests that persons entering the building sign a security log sheet, however, the complainant did not do so, and he was not denied permission to enter the building or to attend the meeting at issue.

 

            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 February 28, 2001.

 

_________________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

 

Bradshaw Smith

23 Ludlow Road

Windsor, CT 06095

 

State of Connecticut

Connecticut Public Transportation Commission

c/o Charles H. Walsh, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, PO Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

FIC/2000-613/FD/paj/03/07/2001