FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Thomas J. D'Amore, Jr.,
against Docket #FIC 86-106
State Elections Commission,
Respondent June 3, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 12, 1986, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On April 23, 1986 the respondent met and disposed of its complaint files numbered 86-102 and 86-106. Both complaints had been filed by the complainant in this matter.
3. On April 23, 1986, upon being notified by a member of the media that the respondent would be holding a meeting that day, a member of the complainant's staff contacted the elections division of the office of the secretary of state and was told by David Guay, an employee in that office, that no notice of the April 23, 1986 meeting was on file.
4. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 23, 1986 the complainant alleged that the respondent held its April 23, 1986 meeting "without giving proper notice of the meeting and without allowing the public to attend the meeting." The complainant also alleged that the respondent failed to file a schedule of regular meetings as required by 1-21(a), G.S.
5. Subsequent to April 23, 1986 the complainant was informed by Mr. Guay that notices required by 1-21(a), G.S. were not required to be placed on file in the elections division, and that a schedule of the respondent's regular meetings was, in fact, on file in the administrative division of the office of the secretary of state.
Docket #FIC 86-106 Page Two
6. On May 6, 1986 the complainant filed an amended complaint in which he alleged that the respondent disposed of his complaints to it without giving him "the required statutory notice," and that the respondent disposed of such complaints "in a manner contrary to its own rules and state law," the effect of which was to deny the complainant a public hearing on his complaint.
7. It is found that on or about December 10, 1985 the respondent placed on file with the office of the secretary of state a schedule of regular meetings for 1986 which stated that for the months of February through December meetings of the respondent would be held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. April 23, 1986 was the fourth Wednesday of the month.
8. It is concluded that the respondent's April 23, 1986 meeting was a regular meeting, notice for which was provided pursuant to 1-21(a), G.S.
9. The complainant provided no evidence that the conduct of the respondent's April 23, 1986 meeting violated any provision of the Freedom of Information Act. This Commission lacks jurisdiction over allegations that the respondent's conduct with respect to its April 23, 1986 meeting violated the respondent's own regulations or other state statutes.
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 May 28, 1986.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission