FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Stephen M. Feinstein, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-303 | ||
|
Third Taxing District of the City of Norwalk, |
|||
| Respondents | November 13, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 20, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC2001-560; Stephen M. Feinstein v. Third Taxing District of the City of Norwalk. The respondent’s motion to dismiss based on the complainant’s failure to personally appear at the hearing is hereby denied.
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 with the Commission on July 9, 2002, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by filing the agenda for the July 8, 2002, regular meeting of the respondent less than twenty-four hours before such meeting, in contravention of the FOI Act and of the more stringent notice requirements adopted by the respondent. The complainant asked that the Commission declare null and void all actions taken at the meeting.
3. Since the Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to the FOI Act, the Commission will address the allegation with respect to the FOI Act but will not address the allegation that the respondent failed to follow its more stringent procedures.
4. Section 1-225(c), G.S., provides in relevant part:
The agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency…shall be available to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer, in such agency's regular office or place of business or, if there is no such office or place of business, in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state.
5. It is found that the respondent commission held a regular meeting at 8:00 P.M. on July 8, 2002 [hereinafter “the regular meeting”]. It is further found that the agenda of the regular meeting was prepared and on file in the office of the respondent at approximately 4:15 P.M. on the afternoon of July 3, 2002. It is also found that there was no evidence presented in this case, that the respondent’s office was not open to the public before the end of office hours on July 3, 2002, at any time on July 8, 2002, or that anyone had attempted to gain access to the July 8, 2002 meeting agenda at the respondent’s office and was unable to do so. At the hearing in this matter, there was insufficient evidence to determine if the office was open on July 5, 2002.
6. The complainant contends that the agenda was not “posted” until after 5:00 P.M. on July 3, 2002, and that, pursuant to §1-225(g), G.S., such posting was not timely. However, §1-225(c), G.S., does not require an agency to “post” the agendas of its regular meetings, and it does not require the filing of such agendas with the municipal town clerk, unless the agency does not have a regular office or place of business, where the public can access such agendas during regular office hours. It is found that the respondent has a regular place of business accessible to the public during regular office hours.
7. Section 1-225(g), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[I]n determining the time within which or by when a notice, agenda, record of votes or minutes of a special meeting or an emergency special meeting are required to be filed under this section, Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and any day on which the office of the agency, the Secretary of the State or the clerk of the applicable political subdivision or the clerk of each municipal member of any multitown district or agency, as the case may be, is closed, shall be excluded.
8. It is concluded that §1-225(g), G.S., by its terms applies to special meetings.
9. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the agenda of the regular meeting was available to the public and filed at the respondent’s office at least twenty-four hours in advance of such meeting within the meaning of §1-225(c), G.S.; and it is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §1-225(c), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.
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 November 13, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Stephen M. Feinstein
c/o Timothy E. Cox, Esq.
Five Myrtle Street
Norwalk, CT 06855
Third Taxing District of the
City of Norwalk
c/o Elizabeth A.B. Suchy, Esq. and
Frank W. Murphy, Esq.
Tierney, Zullo, Flaherty & Murphy, PC
134 East Avenue, PO Box 2028
Norwalk, CT 06851 and
Lawrence P. Dennin, Jr., Esq. and
Christopher J. Jarboe, Esq.
Lovejoy and Rimer, PC
65 East Avenue, PO Box 390
Norwalk, CT 06852-0390
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-303/FD/paj/11/19/2002