CIVIL SUMMONS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SUPERIOR COURT
WWW.JUD.STATE.CT.US
First Named Plaintiff: Koskelowski, Robert, 130 Pearl street, Seymour, CT
Lombardi, Patrick, 149 Derby Avenue, Seymour, CT
Additional Plaintiff: Conroy, John, Jr., c/o 1 First Street, Seymour, CT
Putorti, John, c/o 1 First Street, Seymour, CT
First Named Defendant: Freedom of Information, 18-20 Trinity street, Suite 100, Hartford, CT
Loda, Frank A., 27 Osprey Drive, Seymour, CT
Name and Address of Attorney: George R. Temple, 241 Coram Avenue., Shelton, CT
RET DATE: 2/20/07
ROBERT J. KOSKELOWSKI, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT
JD ANSONIA/MILFORD
V. AT MILFORD
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, ET AL January 29, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT in and for the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford at Milford on January 29, 2007, comes Robert Koskelowski, First Selectman Town of Seymour, Patrick Lombardi Deputy First Selectman, John D. Conroy, Jr. Selectman Town of Seymour, John Putorti, Selectman Town of Seymour pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 4-183 and complains and says:
1. At all times relevant hereto, the appellant, Town of Seymour was a municipal corporation of the County of New Haven and State of Connecticut.
2. At all times relevant hereto, Robert J. Koskelowski was the First Selectman of the Town of Seymour, Patrick Lombardi was a Selectman of the Town of Seymour, John D. Conroy, Jr. was a Selectman of the Town of Seymour and John Putorti was a Selectman of the Town of Seymour.
3. At all times relevant hereto, the Freedom of Information Commission of the State of Connecticut was a Commission of the State of Connecticut, created and governed by Connecticut General Statutes 1-200 et seq.
4. At all times relevant hereto, the complainant Frank A. Loda was a resident of the Town of Seymour.
5. On December 29, 2005, the complainant filed a letter of complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission alleging inter alia that the appellants and particularly the First Selectman illegally promulgated regulations which restricted him and other private parties in the video taping of town meetings.
6. All town meetings in Seymour are governed by Roberts Rules of Order in accordance with the Seymour Town Charter.
7. Prior to said meeting the complainant was allowed unfettered latitude in the filming of said meeting, but it was observed that he positioned himself in a manner as to block a fire exit.
8. Furthermore his proximity to the Board allowed him to make audible, disruptive, childish and rude remarks during the course of the meeting presumably so that he might make a running commentary on the proceedings to his video audience.
9. In keeping with his responsibility to keep order in the meeting the First Selectman and the Board of Selectmen promulgated rules governing video taping.
10. A contested hearing was held on April 19, 2006 before the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commissioner.
11. In a final decision dated December 21, 2006, the Freedom of Information Commission found that the appellants were jointly responsible for a violation of Sec 1-226 of the Connecticut General Statutes in that they did not act reasonably when they prevented the complainant from videotaping from the location he used for "the past year".
12. In addition, the Freedom of Information Commission in its decision of December 21, 2006, found that the respondents violated 1-210(a) 66 by failing to maintain minutes that accurately reflect the matters in question.
13. In addition the Freedom of Information Commission in its opinion of December 31, 2006 found that the appellants discriminated against the complainant in the rules governing video taping of meetings.
14. The decision of the Freedom of Information Commission is contrary to the language of Sec 1-226 in that the decision implies that there is an absolute right to video tape created by the statute.
15. The decision of the Freedom of Information Commission is contrary to Sec 7-148(10) in that it infringes upon the authority and ability of the town to properly exercise its municipal powers.
16. The decision of the Freedom of Information act dated December 21, 2006, further found that the appellants violated Sec 1-210(a) and in particular that section that requires that the "agency shall make and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meeting". The decision does not delineate the alleged inaccuracies of such minutes nor does it give the authority for which it relies to impose a civil penalty for the alleged violation of this section nor does it define what right created by the Freedom of Information was violated to warrant a civil penalty under Sec 1-20 b (6) (2).
17. The decision of the Freedom of Information Commission dated December 21, 2006 found that the respondents were unreasonable when they suggested that the complainant not video private citizens who did not wish to be videoed and made part of a television program. Such a decision would have a chilling effect of private citizens who otherwise wish to participate in their government.
18. The decision of the Freedom of Information Commission dated December 21, 2006 does not fairly apprise each individual respondent of the conduct or acts of omissions that each individuals committed to warrant a fine and under the aegis of Sec 1-206 (b) (3).
WHEREFORE: the applicants appeal from the action and ruling of the Freedom of Information Commission.
Dated at Seymour, Connecticut this 29th day of January, 2007
By _________________________
George R. Temple - Their Attorney
George R. Temple, LLC - Juris Number 063278
241 Coram Avenue, Shelton, Connecticut 06484-4700 - 203-922-6800
______________________________________________________________________________________________
RET DATE: 2/20/07
ROBERT J. KOSKELOWSKI, ET AL SUPERIOR COURT
JD ANSONIA/MILFORD
V. AT MILFORD
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, ET AL January 29, 2007
STATEMENT OF AMOUNT IN DEMAND
The amount in demand is less than Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) exclusive of interest and cost.
George R. Temple
______________________________________________________________________________________________
TO ANY PROPER OFFICER:
BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, you are hereby commanded to summon The Freedom Of Information, 18-20 Trinity St., Suite 100, Hartford, CT and Frank A. Loda, Seymour, CT to appear before the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford, at Milford on said appearance to be made by the Freedom of Information and Frank A. Loda, or their attorney by filing a written statement of appearance with the Clerk of such Court on or before the second day following the return date, then and there to answer unto the foregoing Appeal of Robert Koskelowski, et.al.
Robert J. Koskelowski, et al as principals and RJ Montalvo, of 241 Coram Avenue, Shelton, CT are hereby recognized as jointly and severally bound unto said Freedom of Information and Frank A. Loda in the sum of $250.00 conditioned that the Plaintiffs shall prosecute its appeal to effect and comply with, and conform to, the orders and decrees of the Court in the premises.
Hereof fail not, but due services make in the same manner as is required in case of a summons in a civil action, and due return make.
Dated at Shelton, CT this 29th day of January, 2007
George R. Temple
Paid for and Authorized by the Seymour Democratic Town Committee
Rosalie Averill , Treasurer