FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 9, 2003, 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.   The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.   By letter dated April 9, 2003, and filed with the Commission on April 11, 2003, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to give the complainant timely notice of a March 2003 meeting at which his property was discussed.  The complainant also alleged that the respondents did not open its March 11, 2003 meeting to the public.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties in this matter.

 

3.  It is found that the complainant is a former member and chairman of the respondent board and that, during his tenure as chairman, it was board policy to notify individuals of meetings at which the tax assessor would discuss their property.

 

4.  Section 1-225(a), G.G., states in pertinent part: “[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public….”

 

5.  It is found that, on March 11, 2003, the respondent board held a special meeting [hereinafter “the meeting”] in the assessor’s office during which it heard approximately eight appeals, including that of the complainant.  It is further found that during such meeting, individuals whose appeals were scheduled to be heard were lined up in the hallway outside the office.

 

            6.  It is found that, during the meeting, the complainant entered the office while an appeal other than his own was being heard, and that, while the complainant was not disruptive, such appeal was interrupted.  It is also found that the respondent chairperson and the complainant thereupon exchanged words and that the chairperson told the complainant that the meeting was not a public meeting, at which point Mr. O’Leary, another member of the respondent board, told the complainant to sit down.  It is found that such exchange lasted approximately five seconds, and that the complainant then sat down and attended the meeting.  

 

7.  The complainant contends that the respondents excluded members of the public from the meeting, since individuals were waiting outside the room.  However, there is no evidence in the record to show that the respondents prevented individuals from entering the office to attend the meeting.  Moreover, although the complainant was incorrectly told that the meeting was not public, it is found that the complainant was not prevented from attending the meeting.

 

8.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-225(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

9.  Section 1-227, G.S., provides in pertinent part that a public agency “shall, where practicable, give notice by mail of each regular meeting, and of any special meeting which is called, at least one week prior to the date set for the meeting, to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with such body, except that such body may give such notice as it deems practical of special meetings called less than seven days prior to the date set for the meeting….”

 

10.  It is found that, during the meeting, the complainant filed a written request with the respondents to be notified of any meeting that related to his property.  It is further found that the respondents did not notify the complainant that his property would be discussed at a March 27, 2003 special meeting.

 

11.  Section 1-227, G.S., mandates that, where practicable, notice be provided of each regular meeting and any special meetings, to one who requests and, where applicable, pays a reasonable fee for, such service. 

 

            12.  It is found that the complainant’s letter described in paragraph 10, above, did not request notice of each regular meeting and any special meetings of the respondent board, but rather it requested notice of particular meetings. 

 

            13.  It is further found that the respondents were not obliged by §1-227, G.S., to provide written notice to the complainant of any particular meeting.

 

14.  The Commission notes that the former policy of the respondent board, described in paragraph 3, above, is laudable, however, the respondents did not violate any provision of the Freedom of Information Act, by not instituting such a policy.

 

15.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-227, 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 September 24, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Michael Duff

33 Long Meadow Lane

Bethel, CT  06801

 

 

Donna Kiah, Chairperson, Board of

Assessment Appeals, Town of Bethel;

Terry Rotella, and Thomas F. O’Leary, Jr.,

as members, Board of Assessment Appeals,

Town of Bethel; and Board of Assessment

Appeals, Town of Bethel

c/o Melanie P. O’Brien, Esq.

386 Main Street

Ridgefield, CT  06877

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2003-132FD/mes/09/25/2003