FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Richard P. Porto,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 86-145

 

Bridgeport Parks Board,

 

Respondent August 27, 1986

 

The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 16, 1986, at which time the complainant appeared. The hearing was rescheduled to July 10, 1986, at which time the complainant and 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:

 

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on May 28, 1986 the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by conducting a meeting on May 16, 1986 without conforming to the notice requirements provided in 1-21, G.S.

 

3. It is found that the respondent board conducted a special meeting on May 16, 1986.

 

4. It is found that the respondent caused notice of the special meeting to be posted in the office of the clerk of the City of Bridgeport.

 

5. Although not alleged in the letter of complaint, it is found that the respondent failed to include in its notice of special meeting, the time and place of the meeting in accordance with 1-21, G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 86-145 Page 2

 

6. It is found that one of the items listed in the agenda for the special meeting in question was a request made by Dennis Dean, to the respondent, to use Kennedy Stadium for summer concerts.

 

7. It is found that the agenda adequately provided notice to the public that the topic of summer concerts in Kennedy Stadium would be discussed.

 

8. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated no provision of the Freedom of Information Act by considering and voting on matters concerning summer concerts at Kennedy Stadium at its May 16, 1986 special meeting.

 

9. It is further found that the respondent's act of reconsidering a matter concerning the concerts, that had been voted on and denied at a prior meeting, is one of parliamentary procedure and is not something over which this Commission has jurisdiction.

 

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.

 

2. The Commission notes that in the future, the respondent shall comply strictly with the requirements of 1-21, G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 27, 1986.

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission