FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 19, 2008, 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 e-mail dated and filed February 6, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”) by preventing him from videotaping the Municipal Building Committee’s January 15, 2008 meeting and by questioning him at this same meeting about who had sent him to this meeting, where he lived, and what his knowledge was with regard to building “terminology.”

 

3.  It is found that the respondent committee conducted a meeting on January 15, 2008.

 

4.      It is found that the complainant appeared at the respondents’ January 15, 2008

meeting with his video equipment, prepared to videotape the meeting.  

5.      It is further found that George Brown, the chairman of the Municipal Building

Committee at the time of the January 15, 2008 meeting, informed the complainant that

videotaping and photographing was not allowed at the respondents’ meetings.

6.      It is further found that, at the January 15, 2008 meeting, Chairman Brown questioned the complainant as to who had sent the complainant to the meeting, and why the complainant wanted to videotape the meeting.

 

7.      It is further found that Chairman Brown instructed the complainant to stop videotaping the meeting.

 

8.      Subsections (a) and (b) of §1-226, G.S., provide:

 

(a)    At any meeting of a public agency which is open to the public, pursuant to the provisions of section 1-225, proceedings of such public agency may be recorded, photographed, broadcast or recorded for broadcast, subject to such rules as such public agency may have prescribed prior to such meeting, by any person or by any newspaper, radio broadcasting company or television broadcasting company.  Any recording, radio, television or photographic equipment may be so located within the meeting room as to permit the recording, broadcasting either by radio, or by television, or by both, or the photographing of the proceeding of such public agency.  The photographer or broadcaster and its personnel, or the person recording the proceedings, shall be required to handle the photographing, broadcast or recording as inconspicuously as possible and in such manner as not to disturb the proceedings of the public agency.  As used herein the term television shall include the transmission of visual and audible signals by cable. 

 

(b)   Any such public agency may adopt rules governing such recording, photography or the use of such broadcasting equipment for radio and television stations but, in the absence of the adoption of such rules and regulations by such public agency prior to the meeting, such recording, photography or the use of such radio and television equipment shall be permitted as provided in such section (a).

 

9.      Section 1-225(e), G.S., states that “[n]o member of the public shall be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of any [public agency], 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.” 

10.  It is concluded that, pursuant to §1-226, G.S., the complainant had a right to videotape the meeting, so long as he was not disruptive of the meeting. 

11.  It is found that, upon being instructed by the respondent chairman to turn off his video camera, the complainant stopped videotaping the meeting. 

12.  It is found that the respondents failed to provide any evidence that the complainant’s videotaping of the meeting was disrupting the meeting.

 

13.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondents conceded that they now understand that the complainant has a right to videotape or otherwise record public meetings. 

 

14.  Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, it is found that the respondents wrongfully denied the complainant his right to videotape the January 15, 2008 Municipal Buildings Committee meeting, and therefore it is concluded that the respondents violated §1-226, G.S.

 

15.  It is further found that, by questioning the complainant about his motivation for desiring to videotape the meeting and by asking the complainant where he lived, the respondents created an implicit “condition to attendance,” within the meaning of §1-225(e), G.S.

 

16.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §1-225(e), G.S.

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

1.   Henceforth, the respondents shall permit videotaping of its meetings pursuant to §1-226, G.S.

2.   Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225(e), G.S.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting

of December 10, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Robert McGarrah

16 Woodview Drive

Brookfield, CT 06804

 

Chairman, Municipal Building Committee,

Town of Brookfield; and Municipal Building

Committee, Town of Brookfield

c/o Francis J. Collins, Esq. and

Thomas W. Beecher, Esq.

Collins, Hannafin, Garamella, Jaber & Tuozzolo

148 Deer Hill Avenue

P.O. Box 440

Danbury, CT 06813

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-091FD/sw/12/15/2008