FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

John P. Shacochis,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 91-175

 

New Fairfield Zoning Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  January 8, 1992

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 23, 1991, at which time the complainant 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

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

 

            2.         By letter of complaint filed on May 10, 1991, as amended by a letter dated July 10, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to provide him with a copy of a tape of a certain meeting, and that he received no prior notice that he would be the subject of discussion or action at that meeting.

 

            3.         It is found that the respondent met on November 14, 1990.

 

            4.         It is found that the complainant's day care center was on the agenda for that meeting.

 

            5.         It is found that the complainant was not personally notified that the day care center was on the agenda.

 

            6.         Section 1-21c, G.S., provides in pertinent part:

 

                        The public agency shall, where practicable, give notice by mail of each regular meeting, and of any special meeting which is called, at least one week prior to the date set for the hearing, to any person who has filed a written request for such notice with such body ....

 

            7.         It is found that the complainant had made no request to the respondent that he be notified of any of the respondent's meetings.

 

Docket #FIC 91-175                           Page 2

 

            8.         It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21c, G.S.

 

            9.         It is found that the respondent made a tape recording of its November 14, 1990 meeting, which consisted of three cassettes.

 

            10.       It is concluded that the tapes of the November 14, 1990 meeting are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            11.       It is found that the complainant requested copies of the tapes of the November 14, 1990 meeting on or about January 4, 1991.

 

            12.       It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with three cassette cases containing only two tapes, the tape of the middle portion of the November 14, 1990 meeting being missing.

 

            13.       It is found that the complainant gave the respondent a reasonable opportunity to locate the missing tape, and then re-requested the tape on May 30 and June 25, 1991.

 

            14.       It is found that the respondent made a diligent inquiry after and search for the missing tape, but was unable to locate it.

 

            15.       It is found that the respondent notified the complainant on June 25, 1991 that it was unable to locate the tape.

 

            16.       It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide a copy of the requested tape.

 

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

 

            1.         Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 8, 1992.

 

                                                                  

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission


Docket #FIC 91-175                           Page 3

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

John P. Shacochis

14 Carriage Lane

New Fairfield, CT 06812

 

New Fairfield Zoning Commission

c/o Joseph M. Lodato, Esq.

Pullman & Comley

850 Main Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission