FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                         FINAL DECISION

 

William M. Laviano,

 

                        Complainant,

 

            against                                                       Docket #FIC 88-425

 

Ridgefield Board of Education,

 

                        Respondent                                               August 23, 1989

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 3, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its final decision and record in Docket #FIC 88-165.

 

            3.  It is found that during the summer of 1988, the complainant requested the respondent provide him with access to bills it received from its attorneys from April through June, 1988 for work on matters related to Lodestar, the Ridgefield high school literary magazine.

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with photocopies of the bills in question, with part of each line redacted.

 

            5.  It is found that on October 12, 1988, the respondent's attorney, acting on behalf of the respondent, orally denied the the complainant access to the bills in their unredacted form.

 

            6.  It is found that by letter dated October 14, 1988, and filed with the Commission on October 17, 1988, the complainant appealed to the Commission from the denial of his request.

 

            7.  The respondent claims that the redacted information is legal advice exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(10), G.S., as a communication privileged by the attorney-client relationship.

 

Docket #FIC 88-425                                                                                                 Page Two

 

            8.  The respondent also claims that the redacted information pertains to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending litigation and is exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(4), G.S.

 

            9.  It is found that the bills list, for each item the respondent is billed for, the date, the initials of the attorney involved, a few words describing the work done, and how many hours the work took.

 

            10.  It is found that for each item the information redacted is part of the brief description of the work done.

 

            11.  It is found that at the time of the hearing on this matter no member of the respondent had seen the redacted information.

 

            12.  It is found, therefore, that the redacted information did not advise the attorneys' client, the respondent, on legal matters.

 

            13.  It is concluded that the respondent failed to prove the redacted information was legal advice containing communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.

 

            14.  It is concluded, therefore, that the redacted information is not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(10), G.S.

 

            15.  It is further found that the few words describing the work done for each item is not a record pertaining to the strategy and negotiations of the respondent's pending claims and litigation, but merely an itemized accounting for billing purposes.

 

            16.  It is concluded, therefore, that the redacted information is not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(4), G.S.

 

            17.  It is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by not providing the complainant with prompt access to the requested bills in their entirety.

 

Docket #FIC 88-425                                                                                                 Page Three

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The respondent forthwith shall provide the complainant with a copy of the bills, described in paragraph 3, above, in their entirety.

 

            2.  The respondent shall cause a copy of the final decision in this matter to be posted at the Ridgefield town clerk's office for thirty days immediately after receipt of the notice of final decision.

 

            3.  The Commission reminds the respondent that Commission staff attorneys are available at no cost to the respondent to answer questions over the telephone and lead workshops on Freedom of Information Act requirements.

 

PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

WILLIAM M. LAVIANO, ESQUIRE

24 Bailey Avenue

Ridgefield, CT 06877

 

RIDGEFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION

c/o Robert B. Mitchell, Esquire

Durant, Sabanosh, Nichols & Houston

855 Main Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

            Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 23, 1989.

 

                                                                                                   

                                                                             Tina C. Frappier

                                                                             Acting Clerk of the Commission