FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John J. Lombardi,
against Docket #FIC 87-162
Commissioner William Holland, Commissioner William Wieloszynski and Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Norwalk,
Respondents September 23, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 4, 1987, 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:
1. The respondent board is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By complaint filed June 5, 1987, the complainant alleged that the respondent board held a special meeting on May 28, 1987, at which it improperly added matters to the agenda, and that it held a meeting to interview candidates for deputy chief on May 27, 1987 for which no notice was posted.
3. The complainant asked that a civil penalty be imposed upon the respondents.
4. The respondent board stipulated that it had failed to file the required special meeting notice for the interviews for the deputy chief.
5. The respondents claimed that the May 28, 1987 meeting was an adjourned regular meeting and that therefore it did not violate the Freedom of Information Act when it added additional items to the agenda.
6. The respondents asked that a civil penalty be imposed upon the complainant.
Docket #FIC 87-162 page 2
7. It is found that the regular meeting of May 18, 1987, was adjourned because one of the two police commissioners could not attend.
8. It is found that the respondents failed to satisfy the requirement of §1-21d, G.S., that an order of adjournment must be posted on or near the door of the place where the regular or special meeting was to have been held.
9. It is found, however, that the respondents did post a notice of the change of the date and time for the meeting in the town hall with the clerk in charge of such notices.
10. It is found that under the facts of this case, civil penalties should not be imposed upon either party.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent board shall comply henceforth with the requirements of §1-21 and §1-21d, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of September 23, 1987.
Catherine H. Lynch
Acting Clerk of the Commission