FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Fred Radford,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 86-236

 

Trumbull Planning and Zoning Commission, Chairman, Trumbull Planning and Zoning Commission, Clerk of the Trumbull Planning and Zoning Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals and Trumbull First Selectman,

 

Respondents November 18, 1986

 

The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 25, 1986, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

After consideration of the entire record the following facts are found:

 

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter of complaint dated August 26, 1986, and filed with the Commission on August 27, 1986, the complainant alleged that the respondents failed to file a "transcript" of their meetings held on July 23, 1986, August 5, 1986 and August 11, 1986 in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

3. At the hearing before the Commission, the respondents conceded that the minutes of the meetings in question were not filed within the time periods mandated by 1-21(a), G.S., and agreed to provide the complainant with copies of the minutes for the three meetings.

 

4. The respondents explained that the minutes were not filed on time because they have to comply with other notice requirements in accordance 8-7, G.S., and they "physically do not have the skilled staff to comply with both requirements."

 

Docket #FIC 86-236 Page 2

 

5. The Commission notes, however, that 1-21(a), G.S., states in relevant part, "minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer," and that this statutory provision is equally important.

 

6. The Commission also notes that the minimal requirements of 1-21(a), G.S. do not require public agencies to transcribe in such complete detail their proceedings, as alleged in the complainant's letter of complaint.

 

7. The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondents as requested by the complainant.

 

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

 

1. The respondents shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 18, 1986.

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk Of the Commission