FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
C. J. Mozzochi,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-142
Town Manager of
the Town of Glastonbury,
Respondent September 24, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on July 11, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on May 27, 1986 the complainant
requested a hearing on a letter to the respondent dated May 21, 1986.
3. In
a May 21, 1986 letter to the respondent the complainant requested access to
inspect or copy all files, open or closed, and including all in-house billing
records and time cards, pertaining to Town of Glastonbury matters in which the
services of Attorneys Harvey A. Katz, Homer Scoville, William Rogers or Richard
Brown were used. At hearing, the
complainant narrowed his request to exclude records relating to matters in
negotiation.
4. At
hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the
Commission failed to comply with 4-177(b), G.S., and that such alleged
failure to comply violated the due process protections afforded by the United
States Constitution.
5. It
is found that upon receipt of the complainant's letter requesting a hearing,
the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing and Order to Show Cause, to which
were appended copies of all documents received from the complainant. Such procedure was followed in accordance
with the directives of 1-21i(b), G.S. and
Docket #FIC
86-142 Page Two
fully met the
requirements of 4-177(b), G.S.
Furthermore, the respondent could have applied for a more definite and
detailed statement of the matters at issue, pursuant to 4-177(b), G.S.,
but failed to do so.
6. The
respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground of inadequate notice and lack of
due process was, therefore, denied.
7. By
letter dated June 4, 1986 the respondent advised the complainant that upon
reasonable notice specifying the specific file, the Town of Glastonbury would
make available for inspection or copying pleadings, bills, invoices,
correspondence to third parties, provided such correspondence was not protected
by the attorney-client privilege or part of negotiations and strategy relating
to active files, and final advisory opinions not protected by the
attorney-client privilege or the work product of the attorney.
8. The
respondent has offered access to all bills submitted to the Town of
Glastonbury, which bills record account numbers and names, previous balances,
new billings, payments received, current balances, the nature of the
professional services rendered, dates of services, and amount of time spent on
each activity in both detailed and summary form.
9. It
is found that the complainant has not requested or been denied access to any
specific, identifiable public record.
In response to a broad request for a category of records the respondent
offered access to the fullest extent possible, reserving its right to withhold
documents which might be legitimately exempt from disclosure.
10. It
is concluded that under the circumstances of this matter, the complainant has
not been denied access to inspect or copy any public record within the meaning
of 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 24, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission