FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Matthew Bertron, David
Goddard and the Register Citizen,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-113
Board of Selectmen, Town
Manager and Mayor of the Town of Winchester,
Respondents August
10, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 31, 1988, at which time the complainants 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. At a
March 1, 1988 special meeting, the Highland Lake commission of the Town of
Winchester composed a rough draft of a letter to the respondent board of
selectmen concerning water safety and water quality proposals, and announced
that a final draft of the letter would be reviewed at the commission's March
16, 1988 meeting.
3. At its
March 16, 1988 meeting the Highland Lake commission approved the final draft of
the letter, to be delivered to the respondent board of selectmen by the
respondent town manager.
4. At the
March 16, 1988 meeting of the Highland lake commission the complainant Bertron
requested a copy of the letter, but was told by the commission chairman that
the respondent town manager had asked her not to release the letter.
5. On March
17, 1988 the complainant Bertron made a request of the respondent town manager
for a copy of the letter in question and was told by the respondent town
manager that he had not yet received the letter. The respondent town manager received the letter on March 18,
1988.
6. On March
18, 1988 the complainant Bertron made a second request of the respondent town
manager for
Docket #FIC 88-113 Page
Two
a copy of the letter and was
told that, upon advice of counsel, the letter would not be released until it
had been delivered to the letter's addressee, the board of selectmen.
7. On or
about March 18, 1988 the respondent town manager prepared a packet of
information, including the letter in question, for a regular meeting of the
respondent board scheduled for March 21, 1988.
8. The
respondent board was scheduled to hold a budget meeting on March 18, 1988 at
7:30 p.m., at which time the packets of information for the March 21, 1988
meeting were to be distributed to board members.
9. At
approximately 7:15 p.m. on March 18, 1988, the complainant Register Citizen,
through a reporter, Tim Quinson, made a request of the respondent mayor for a
copy of the letter in question. The
respondent mayor, who is a member of the respondent board, stated that he would
release a copy of the letter at the close of the budget meeting, after copies
of the letter had been distributed to other members of the respondent board.
10. Mr.
Quinson did not remain until the adjournment of the March 18, 1988 meeting and,
consequently, did not receive a copy of the letter on that date.
11. Mr.
Quinson attended the respondent board's March 21, 1988 regular meeting at 7:00
p.m. and received a copy of the letter at that time.
12. By letter
dated March 21, 1988 and filed with the Commission on March 25, 1988 the
complainants alleged that the respondents failed to release the letter from the
Highland Lake commission in a timely manner.
13. It is
found that the letter in question related to the conduct of the public's
business and was prepared by an agency of the Town of Winchester on or prior to
March 16, 1988.
14. It is
concluded that at all times relevant to the complaint the letter in question
was a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
15. It is
found that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act exempts a public record
from disclosure on the ground that it has not been delivered to the addressee.
Docket #FIC 88-113 Page
Three
16. The
respondents failed to prove that the letter in question, at the time of the
complainant Bertron's March 18, 1988 request, was exempt from disclosure
pursuant to other state statute or federal law.
17. It is
concluded that the respondent town manager violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
when he failed to provide the complainant Bertron with a copy of the requested
letter on March 18, 1988.
18. At
hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint against the respondents
mayor and board on the ground that the complainants failed to make a request
for the letter during regular business hours.
19. It is
found that the request directed by Mr. Quinson to the respondents mayor and
board was not a request to inspect records within the meaning of §1-19(a),
G.S., but was a request for a copy of a record within the meaning of §1-15,
G.S. Nothing in §§1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.
limits requests for copies of records to regular business hours. The respondents' motion to dismiss on such
basis is, therefore, denied.
20. It is
found that the respondent mayor received Mr. Quinson's written request for a
copy of the letter approximately 15 minutes prior to the convening of the March
18, 1988 meeting.
21. It is
further found that the respondents failed to prove any impediment to immediate
access to the record other than the respondent mayor's desire to place copies
of the letter in the hands of other board members prior to releasing it to Mr.
Quinson.
22. It is
concluded that the respondent mayor and respondent board, as represented by the
respondent mayor, violated §§1-15, G.S.
when they failed to provide the complainant Register Citizen, through Mr.
Quinson, with a copy of the requested record prior to their March 18, 1988
meeting.
23. At
hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on the
ground that the Highland Lake commission was not named as a respondent.
24. It is
found that the relevant requests for records were directed to the named
respondents. The fact that an initial,
preliminary request was denied by the Highland Lake commission does not
necessitate naming such agency as a party herein. The respondents' motion to dismiss on such basis is hereby
denied.
Docket #FIC 88-113 Page
Four
25. At
hearing, the complainants requested that the Commission order the respondents
to attend a training session on issues relating to the Freedom of Information
Act.
26. It is found
that in March, 1988, the Town of Winchester sponsored a training session for
its employees which included a discussion by the town attorney of the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
27. Under the
circumstances, the Commission declines to grant the relief requested by the
complainants.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondents henceforth shall comply with the requirements of §§1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S., regarding prompt access to copies of public records.
2. Although
the circumstances of the above matter do not indicate the necessity of a
Commission-ordered training session so soon following the respondents' March,
1988 session, the Commission notes that its staff members are available for
such a session should the respondents desire one, and are also available to
respond to questions on the subject of the Freedom of Information Act. The Commission strongly suggests that the
respondents avail themselves of such services.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of August 10, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission