FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final
Decision
Clifford Devine,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 88-491
Chairperson, Salem Town
Office Building Committee,
Respondent May
10, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on February 14, 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. By letter
dated November 21, 1988, the complainant requested the respondent provide him
with copies of:
a. all correspondence to or from the
respondent's committee during its November 16, 1988, meeting,
b. and a letter and check given to an
architect during that same meeting.
3. By letter
dated November 21, 1988, the respondent denied the complainant's request.
4. By letter
dated and filed with the Commission on December 21, 1988, the complainant
appealed the denial of his request to the Commission.
5. By letter
dated January 3, 1988, the complainant amended his complaint and asked the
Commission to impose a civil penalty upon the respondent.
6. The respondent
claims that all records she generates as her committee's chairperson she files
with the town clerk. The respondent
further claims that she delayed filing certain correspondence from the November
16, 1988, meeting because the
Docket #FIC 88-491 Page
Two
legality of the meeting had
been questioned due to the lack of a quorum.
7. It is found
that no check was given to an architect during the respondent's committee's
November 16, 1988, meeting.
8. It is found
that during that meeting the respondent gave an architect from a firm named
Centerbrook an envelope and a letter acknowledging a bill.
9. It is found
that the letter of acknowledgement had been duly approved at the respondent
committee's previous meeting and that the respondent was authorized to forward
it to the architect at any time.
10. It is found
that the respondent retained her copy of the bill acknowledgement, intending to
file it with the town clerk at the same time she filed the other correspondence
relevant to that meeting.
11. It is found
that the other correspondence consisted of:
a. a letter to the respondent's committee
from Centerbrook dated November 10, 1988,
b. a letter to the respondent's committee
from Centerbrook dated November 16, 1988,
c. and a letter to Centerbrook from the
respondent dated November 2, 1988.
12. It is found
that the respondent delayed filing the other correspondence because, almost two
hours into the meeting, she had been questioned vociferously by the complainant
about the meeting's legality and shortly thereafter terminated the
meeting. Thus, the respondent had not
yet shown the members of her committee that correspondence.
13. It is found
that the correspondence described in paragraph 11, above, was discussed at the
respondent's committee's November 21, 1988 meeting.
14. It is found
that it was not until December 6, 1988, that the respondent filed the records
described in paragraphs 8 and 11, above, with the town clerk, attached to the
minutes from her committee's November 30, 1988, meeting.
15. It is found
that the records described in paragraphs 8
Docket #FIC 88-491 Page
Three
and 11, above, were all
public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S., both at the
time the respondent first received them and at the time of the complainant's
request.
16. It is found
that these records were in the respondent's custody at the time of the
complainant's request and not yet filed at the town clerk's office.
17. It is further
found that the fact the committee's members had not yet seen the records did
not exempt the records from disclosure.
18. Thus it is
concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by denying the
complainant's request for the records described in paragraphs 8 and 11, above.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.,
granting prompt access upon request to public records within her custody.
2. The respondent
forthwith shall amend the minutes of her committee's November 21, 1988, meeting
by attaching the records described in paragraph 11, above.
3. The respondent
shall attach a photocopy of the decision in this matter to the minutes of her
committee's next meeting after final approval of the decision by the full
Commission.
4. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty upon the respondent.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of May 10, 1989.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission