FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Linda Trahan,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2008-244

Planning and Zoning Commission,

Town of Brooklyn,

 
  Respondent September 10, 2008
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 3, 2008, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated April 7, 2008 and filed on April 9, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to mail notice of its sub-committee meetings pursuant to §1-227, G.S., and for failing to have the minutes and the agenda of its January 15, 2008 sub-committee meeting on file at the Brooklyn town clerk’s office. 

 

3.      Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

. . . A notice of appeal shall be filed not later than thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed not later than thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held . . . .

 

4.      It is found that the respondent held a Sand and Gravel Sub-Committee meeting on January 15, 2008.

 

5.      It is found that the Sand and Gravel Sub-Committee’s meeting of January 15, 2008 was a “special meeting” within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S., for which no notice and agenda were posted nor were the minutes of such meeting available within seven days of that meeting.

 

6.      It is found that the complainant did not have notice in fact of the respondent’s January 15, 2008 special meeting until March 19, 2008 when she received a copy of two letters addressed to certain permit renewal applicants which letters provide in relevant part that at the “January 15, 2008 Gravel Subcommittee meeting it was voted to unanimously approve your . . . renewal application.” 

 

7.      It is found that the complaint in this matter was filed within thirty days after the complainant received notice in fact that the January 15, 2008 meeting was held.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S.

 

8.      With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent violated the FOI Act by failing to comply with her request to receive written notice of the meetings of the respondent, §1-227, G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

The 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 . . . .

 

9.      It is found that by certified letter dated January 9, 2008, the complainant made a request to the respondent to receive written notice of the meetings of the respondent “including, but not limited to regular meetings, special meetings, and sub-committee meetings, concerning the issues of gravel permit applications, permit renewals and proposed changes in any regulations associated with the Planning and Zoning Commission…” (hereinafter “the January 9, 2008 letter”).

 

10.   It is found that the respondent did not provide the complainant with written, or any other, notice of its January 15, 2008 special meeting.  

 

11.   It is found, however, that the delivery receipt for the complainant’s January 9, 2008 letter indicates that it was delivered to the Brooklyn town hall on January 10, 2008 and was signed for by a J. Ruffo.

 

12.   It is also found that while the respondent’s address is at the Brooklyn town hall, it does not have an office or regular place of business at the town hall and there is no employee at the town hall assigned to work directly for the respondent.

 

13.   The respondent contends that it became aware of the complainant’s request for written notice of its meetings only when it received notice of her complaint from this Commission.

 

14.   It is concluded, however, that it is the respondent’s obligation to collect mail that is properly addressed and delivered to its address.

 

15.   It is concluded, therefore, that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent violated §1-227, G.S., as alleged by the complainant.

 

16.   With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the agenda for the respondent’s January 15, 2008 special meeting was not available for her inspection at the town clerk’s office on March 18, 2008, §1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

. . . Each agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located or of the Secretary of the State, as the case may be . . . .

 

17.   It has already been found in paragraph 12, above, that the respondent does not have an office or regular place of business.

 

18.   It is found, therefore, that the respondent is required to keep and maintain all public records in its custody in the office of the Brooklyn town clerk.

 

19.   It is found that on the morning of January 15, 2008, the respondent’s chairman forwarded, by e-mail, the notice and agenda for the January 15, 2008 special meeting to the Brooklyn town clerk with the intention that she post it.

 

20.   It is found, however, that he did not confirm that the notice and agenda were posted nor did he confirm that the town clerk received his e-mail.

 

21.   It is found that as of June 24, 2008, the agenda for the January 15, 2008 special meeting was still not in the office of the Brooklyn town clerk. 

 

22.   It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to keep and maintain all public records in its custody in the office of the Brooklyn town clerk.

 

23.   With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent failed to file minutes of its January 15, 2008 special meeting, §1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

. . . [the] minutes [of a public agency] shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.

 

24.   It is found that the respondent failed to make available to the public the minutes of that meeting within seven days.

 

25.   It is also found that as of the date of the hearing on this matter, the respondent still had not made the minutes of its January 15, 2008 special meeting available to the public at the Brooklyn town clerk’s office. 

 

26.   It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S., by failing to make the minutes of its January 15, 2008 special meeting available to the public as required by that provision.

 

27.   At the hearing on this matter, the complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

28.   With respect to the complainant’s request for the imposition of a civil penalty, §1-206(b)(2), G.S. provides, in relevant part:

 

… upon the finding that a denial of any right created by the

Freedom of Information Act was without reasonable grounds

and after the custodian or other official directly responsible

for the denial has been given an opportunity to be heard at

a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to

4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion,

impose against the custodian or other official a civil penalty

of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand

dollars.

 

29.   It is found that the respondent’s failure to comply with the FOI Act was

 without reasonable grounds.

 

30.   It is also found that the chairman of the respondent, Mr. Thomas Doherty, is

 the official directly responsible for the violation described in paragraph 26, above.

 

            31.  At the hearing on this matter, Mr. Thomas Doherty, through counsel, stipulated that he was prepared to proceed on the issue of the imposition of a civil penalty.  The hearing proceeded on the issue with evidence being presented.  Therefore, no additional hearing is necessary on such issue.   

 

 

 

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

1.      The respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-225(a), and 1-227, G.S.

 

2.      While it was not fairly raised in the complaint in this matter, it should be noted that even if the town clerk posted the notice and agenda for the January 15, 2008 special meeting, the respondent would not have been in compliance with the requirements of §1-225(d), G.S., which require that such notice “shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting . . . .” [emphasis added]

 

3.      The respondent is ordered to schedule and attend an FOI workshop conducted by one of the staff of this Commission within sixty (60) days of the mailing of the final decision in this matter.

 

4.   Forthwith, the respondent chairman, Mr. Thomas Doherty, shall remit a

civil penalty in the amount of $200.00 to this Commission.

           

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 10, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

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:

 

Linda Trahan

26 Maynard Road

Brooklyn, CT 06234

 

Planning and Zoning Commission,

Town of Brooklyn

c/o Mark R. Brouillard, Esq.

St. Onge & Brouillard

PO Box 550

Putnam, CT 06260-0550

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-244FD/paj/9/17/2008