FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Nicholas B. Wynnick,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 89-70
Ansonia Library Board of
Directors,
Respondent July
26, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on June 6, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared,
stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on
the complaint. This case was
consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 89-42 and Docket #FIC 89-43.
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 respondent held a regular meeting on January 9,
1989.
3. At that meeting, the respondent convened in executive
session for the stated purpose of discussing the employment situation of an
individual who was employed by the Ansonia Library.
4. On the morning of February 8, 1989 the complainant
requested of the desk clerk at the Ansonia Library a copy of the letter
notifying the employee who was the subject of the January 9, 1989 executive
session that she would be discussed in executive session.
5. The complaint was given a copy of the minutes of the
January 9, 1989 meeting and told by the assistant library director that she did
not know where the requested notice was, but that someone could respond to the
complainant's request that afternoon.
Docket #FIC 89-70 Page
2
6. On the afternoon of February 8, 1989, the complainant
repeated his request to the library director, who provided him with a copy of a
memorandum dated January 17, 1989 from the library director to the president of
the respondent board, recommending that the situation that then existed with
the subject library employee be added to the respondent's agenda for its
February 6, 1989 meeting.
7. By letter of complaint dated February 16, 1989 and
received by the Commission on February 21, 1989, the complainant appealed to
the Commission, alleging that he had been denied his request for a copy of the
notice described in paragraph 4, above.
8. At the hearing, the hearing officer denied the
respondent's request that the hearing be continued because the president of the
respondent board was unable to attend and present testimony.
9. It is found that the records provided to the
complainant were not responsive to his request.
10. It is concluded that the record described in
paragraph 4, above, if it exists, is recorded data or information relating to
the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or
retained by a public agency.
11. It is concluded therefore that the record described
in paragraph 4, above, if it exists, is a public record within the meaning of
§1-18a(d), G.S.
12. It is found that the Ansonia Library is the
respondent's regular office or place of business.
13. It is concluded that §1-19(a), G.S., requires the
respondent to keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its
regular office or place of business in an accessible place, unless the
respondent has no regular office or place of business.
14. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent
violated §1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide access to or a copy of the
record described in paragraph 4, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant
with a copy of the requested record or, within two weeks of the issuance of the
Final Decision in this matter, provide the complainant with an affidavit
stating that it has conducted a thorough
Docket #FIC 89-70 Page
3
search of its records,
including any records currently maintained at locations other than the Ansonia
Library, and that the record requested by the complainant does not exist.
2. The respondent shall henceforth act in strict
compliance with the terms of §1-19(a), G.S., of the Freedom of Information Act
regarding the maintenance of its records at its regular office or place of
business in an accessible place.
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:
NICHOLAS B. WYNNICK
55 Prospect Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
JAMES E. SHEEHY, ESQ.
303 Wakeley Avenue
Ansonia, CT 06401
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of July 26, 1989.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission