|
|
P&Z dismissed initial complaints from the residents regarding shooting activity on the property, and Mr. Speck was then asked to investigate the activity and obtain a legal opinion from Mr. Byrne. This long-awaited report, Mr. Williams contends, was not made available to him when he asked for it.
Mr. Williams filed his complaint under Chapter 14 of the Connecticut General Statues, and is asking the FOI Commission to fine Mr. Speck under Sec. 1-206 b. "a civil penalty of not less than $20 and no more than $1,000."
He also asks that the same fine be assessed against Zoning Commission Chairperson Barbara Putnam and commission Vice Chairman, William Burgess because, "they, as knowing and responsible members of the commission, aided and abetted Mr. Speck, an employee of the town and of the commission."
"They [Mr. Speck, Mr. Burgess and Ms. Putnam] do not have the legal authority to decide whether or not to release information, because if it's in that [Land Use Office] it's all public record," said Mr. Williams during a phone interview Monday morning. "I'm just sorry this had to go this far. I'm really wound up about the whole thing."
According to his letter of complaint to the FOI, on Friday, July 19 at approximately 10 a.m. Mr. Williams said he went to the Land Use Office in Bantam to read the correspondence file in preparation for the July 21 meeting.
After reading part of the file, he asked commission secretary Nancy Lacko to see a Zoning Board of Appeals letter that was mentioned incorrectly on the commission's agenda, and a legal opinion letter from Attorney Byrne.
Ms. Lacko told Mr. Williams that "the computer had not been operating for two days, and as a result, those two documents were not available," and that she was "working to get the file ready," the letter states.
When Mr. Williams asked to see the original documents, Ms. Lacko said she didn't know where they were, and "maybe [Ms. Putnam] has them."
Mr. Williams said he would come back later in the day. At approximately 2:30 that same Friday, he called the office, and after being put on hold, spoke to Mr. Speck.
"Mr. Speck came on the line and told me the two letters I requested will be available to 'all' members on July 21 at the same time so everyone has an equal chance to review them," according to Mr. Williams' letter. "I then asked why I couldn't see the letter and Mr. Speck said they dealt with zoning enforcement so all commission members should see them at once at Monday's meeting."
According to the FOI Web site, "an agency is required to provide 'prompt' access to public records. Promptness is a standard determined by consideration of a number of factors such as: how busy the agency is at the time of the request, how time-consuming it will be to comply with the request and the urgency of need for the information contained in the records.
If an agency fails to respond to a written request within four business days, such failure can be treated as a denial of the request.
Mr. Williams continued in his letter and said, "I learned later from Ms. Putnam [that the letters] were to be fully discussed at the August 4 meeting of the commission."
He then proceeded to call Ms. Putnam at home to voice his concern that the State Freedom of Information Act was being violated by Mr. Speck's refusal to release the documents to him.
"She said I had every right to have them and was surprised they were not forthcoming," Mr. Williams said in his letter.
At the July 21 meeting, Mr. Williams said he made it clear that he was dissatisfied with Mr. Speck's decision not to release the letter until that meeting because it deprived him "of an opportunity to prepare for it."
Mr. Speck, who usually chooses not to comment on matters relating to his work with the land use boards, broke his silence regarding the FOI complaint.
"It is unfortunate that Mr. Williams has disregarded all municipal policies regarding these matters and further elects to manufacture a 'controversy' for his own personal purposes at the expense of the commission and community," he said, referring to Mr. Williams distributing copies of his FOI complaint to commission members at the Aug. 4 meeting.
"I look forward to engaging his concerns in the proper forum and am confident that this issue will fail on the merits," he added.
While commission members were discussing the case, Mr. Williams said in his letter that Mr. Burgess appeared "well informed about the letters."
When he asked Mr. Burgess if he had seen the letters before the meeting, Mr. Burgess said he had read them and discussed them at an informal meeting in the Land Use Office with Mr. Speck and Ms. Putnam, and that all three agreed not to let the rest of the commission members see the letters until their meeting.
At this week's commission meeting, where Mr. Williams read his complaint into the record, Mr. Burgess said Mr. Williams' allegations of him having access and having read the letters were "false."
"... It is my intention in filing this complaint that Mr. Speck, Ms. Putnam and Mr. Burgess be fined for intentionally failing to follow state Freedom of Information laws and they be informed, as they well know, that public information cannot be kept secret and merely distributed at their convenience or when they believe the time is ripe," concluded Mr. Williams, in his letter of complaint.
The FOI Commission's mission is to "administer and enforce the provisions of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, and to thereby ensure citizen access to the records and meetings of public agencies in the State of Connecticut," according to the Web site.
The FOI Commission hears complaints from persons who have been denied access to the records or meetings of public agencies in Connecticut. Any person denied the right to inspect, or to get a copy of a public record, or denied access to a meeting of a public agency, may file a complaint against the public agency within 30 days of the denial.
A spokesperson said the FOI Commission will conduct a hearing on the complaint, which hearing is attended by the complainant and the public agency. A decision is then rendered by the FOI Commission finding the public agency either in violation of the FOI Act or dismissing the complaint if the public agency is found not to have violated the FOI Act.
If the public agency has violated the FOI Act, the FOI Commission can order the disclosure of public records, determine that a decision reached during a public meeting is null and void, or impose other appropriate relief.
In many instances, a hearing is not necessary as the parties are able to resolve their differences with the assistance of an FOI staff attorney, who acts as an ombudsman.
From the date the complaint was filed, a docketing letter with a case number and the name of the ombudsman will be sent to the involved parties in eight to 10 weeks, a spokesperson at the Hartford office said.
During this period of time, the FOI commission will review the complaint for jurisdiction and decided from there if the case has merit and if they will open it or not.
For more information on the State Freedom of Information Act, visit www.state.ct.us/foi/.
