FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Paul C. Halas, Jr.,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 88-109
Redding Planning Commission,
Diane Taylor, Chairman, Redding Planning Commission, and Michael N. Lavelle,
Redding Town Counsel,
Respondents July
27, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 16, 1988, 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 March 9, 1988, the complainant requested to inspect or copy the
respondent planning commission's complete file pertaining to application #394,
the Sanfordtown Meadow file.
3. By letter
dated March 9, 1988, the respondent chairman denied the complainant's request.
4. By letter
filed on March 25, 1988, the complainant appealed to the Commission.
5. At the hearing
the complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the
respondents.
6. The
respondents claim that the requested records became records of the court when
the originals were returned to court for a pending appeal and that the Freedom
of Information Act does not require the respondent commission to maintain a
copy of the records under such circumstances.
Docket # 88-109 Page
Two
7. It is found
that the records in question are public records, as defined by §§1-18a(d) and
1-19, G.S., maintained by the respondent planning commission.
8. It is found
that from March 8, 1988, until March 30, 1988, the respondent town counsel was
using the requested records, and that they were not available, therefore, at
the respondent commission's office when the complainant requested them.
9. It is found
that the respondents town counsel and commission both were aware of the
complainant's request by March 9, 1988.
10. It is further
found that on March 30, 1988, the respondent town counsel sent the originals to
court as the partial return of record for an appeal. He sent a copy of that partial return of record to the
complainant's attorney that same day.
11. It is found
that the complainant was denied access to the respondent commission's file for
three weeks.
12. Thus it is
concluded that the complainant did not receive, promptly upon written request,
a copy of the requested records, in violation of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
13. It is also
concluded that the complainant was denied the right to inspect records
maintained by the respondent commission during its regular business hours, in
violation of §1-19(a), G.S.
14. It is further
concluded that the respondent commission failed to keep public records in its
custody at its regular office in an accessible place, in violation of §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 respondent
commission henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S.
2. The respondent
town counsel henceforth shall return records of the respondent commission which
he uses to the commission's office in a timely manner.
Docket #88-109 Page
Three
3. The
respondents commission and town counsel forthwith shall establish a procedure
to ensure that a copy of each commission record is kept by the commission if
the town counsel needs to use the record for an extended period of time or
sends the original to court.
4. The Commission
recommends that the respondent commission contact the state Public Records
Administrator for information on other applicable records retention statutes
and schedules.
5. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty upon the respondents.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of July 27, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission