FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Sandra Eligio,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 87-256
Town Clerk of East Haven and
Republican and Democratic Registrars of Voters of the Town of East Haven,
Respondents January
13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on October 7, 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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated September 14, 1987, and filed with the Commission on September 10, 1987,
the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging the denial of her request
for a preliminary registry list of voters.
3. The respondent
registrars claim they gave the complainant all registry lists and updates
promptly.
4. The respondent
town clerk claims the complainant never requested the records in question from
her and that she never had them.
5. The
respondents further claim that the complaint is frivolous and request a civil
penalty be imposed against the complainant.
6. It is found
that the respondent registrars share one clerical assistant and one office,
where they keep voter records for all parties.
7. It is found
that a few days after August 14, 1987, the complainant requested the respondent
Republican registrar provide her with a copy of updated voter registration
sheets.
Docket #FIC 87-256 Page
Two
8. It is found
that in a letter to the respondent Republican registrar dated September 1,
1987, and received by the registrars' clerical assistant on September 1, 1987,
the complainant requested "copies of all new registered G.O.P. voters as
of June 1."
9. It is found
that on September 1, 1987, after the regular business hours of the respondent
registrars' office, the respondent democratic registrar met the complainant's
campaign manager in a public parking lot and gave him that part of the
requested record covering East Haven voting districts two through five.
10. It is found
that the complainant later received this record from her manager.
11. It is found
that on several occasions the complainant reiterated her request in person to
the registrars' clerical assistant.
12. It is found
that the record the complainant wanted was an April 22, 1987, computer
print-out called a "street sheet," listing voters and their addresses
in all five East Haven voting districts, which updated the voter lists from the
1986 general election and which canvassers used from April to September, 1987.
13. It is found
that the complainant's campaign manager received two copies of this record in
July 1987, before the complainant was officially a candidate in local primary
elections.
14. It is found
that the respondent registrars and their clerical assistant assumed the
complainant received the complete record described in paragraph 12, above, from
her manager and did not understand that it was the update she wanted.
15. Nonetheless,
it is found that the respondent registrars never gave the complainant herself
the record described in paragraph 12, above.
16. It is
concluded that, in the confusion of a heated political campaign, the respondent
registrars may have technically violated §1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by not
providing the complainant with a copy of the record described in paragraph 12,
above.
17. It is found
that the registrars or their clerical
Docket #FIC 87-256 Page
Three
assistant provided the
complainant with all other updates of voter records promptly as they became
available.
18. It is found
that the complainant never requested the records in question from the
respondent town clerk.
19. It is found
that the complainant's campaign manager did request them from the town clerk
and was told she did not have them.
20. It is found
that the town clerk indeed never had these records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
registrars forthwith shall provide the complainant with a copy of the complete
record described in paragraph 12 of the findings, above.
2. The respondent
registrars henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S.
3. Recognizing
that confusion of the sort occurring in this case is likely to occur again when
many similar computer print-outs circulate during heated political campaigns,
the Commission encourages the respondent registrars to provide all candidates
in future local elections with a list of available voter records and a
timetable of when updates will be available.
4. The complaint
against the town clerk is hereby dismissed.
5. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty on the complainant.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of January 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission