In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION


Mr. and Mrs. Peter Serafin,




against Docket #FIC 87-115


Lord's Point Association, Inc.,


Respondent July 22, 1987


The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 2, 1987, at which time the complainants 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:


1. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 20, 1987, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act at its special meeting on March 22, 1987 by discussing and voting on a matter that was not reflected in its notice of special meeting.


2. The respondent was incorporated by a special act of the Connecticut General Assembly in 1925 and is empowered to levy taxes in order to provide for the improvement of specific land and to protect the interests of its inhabitants.


3. It is found that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.


4. It is found that the item of business listed in the respondent's March 22, 1987 notice of special meeting was "to decide whether to purchase from the estate of Fanny Noyes Lord, for $22,500 all paper roads, beaches, and other properties south of the rail road tracks, with the exception of certain pieces of property being sold separately to a private party."


Docket #FIC 87-115 Page 2


5. It is also found that at the special meeting in question, members of the respondent voted to purchase the property from the estate of Fanny Noyes Lord and also voted that the down-payment of $1,000 would come out of the respondent's road fund and that the balance of $21,500 would be borrowed by the respondent.


6. The complainants contend that it was improper for the respondent to discuss and vote on any matter concerning how the purchase would be financed because it was not reflected in the notice of special meeting and that by doing so the respondent violated 1-21, G.S.


7. It is found, however, that the respondent's notice of special meeting adequately informed the public of the business that would be transacted at its March 22, 1987 special meeting.


8. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21, G.S. by discussing and voting on how the purchase would be financed.


9. The Commission would like to commend the respondent on the diligent manner in which it provides notice of meetings to its 240 members. The act of mailing out personal notices to all of its members to apprise them of meetings goes far beyond the notice requirements of 1-21, G.S.


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


1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.


Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 22, 1987.



Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission