FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Paul Choiniere and the Day,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 89-100

Ernest Zmyslinski, Norwich City Manager,

Respondent December 13, 1989

The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing as a contested case on August 17, 1989, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, evidence 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 March 9, 1989, complainant Choiniere requested a copy of a HUD report detailing why the city was asked to return approximately $181,990 to the Community Development Block Grant Program.

3. On March 27, 1989 complainant Choiniere filed a letter of complaint with the Commission alleging that no response to his written request had been received.

4. The respondent provided the records to the complainants on July 28, 1989.

5. The respondent claims that the requested records were exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(3), G.S., because the report was being used in a prospective law enforcement action.

6. It is found that the requested report presented the results of on-site monitoring of the Community Development Block Grant Program No. B-88-MC-09-0012. The report consisted of a case by case analysis of property rehabilitation cases, findings of irregularities and mismanagement, and advice that the city reimburse the program in the amount of $181,992.80.

Docket #FIC 89-100 Page 2

7. It is found that HUD utilized its on-site monitoring visit as the basis for a detailed program review because the city brought certain improprieties in the administration of the program to its attention.

8. It is concluded that the requested report is a report developed by HUD describing a detailed program review of Grant No. B-88-MC-09-0012.

9. It is found that a local contractor was arrested the day before the complainants requested the report, and that no subsequest arrests were made.

10. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested report was a record of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public, and that he also failed to prove that the report was compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime.

11. It is concluded that the requested record was not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(3).

12. It is concluded that the respondent failed to comply with the requirement of 1-19(a), G.S. to supply copies of requested record promptly.

13. The complainants ask that the Commission impose a civil penalty on the respondent.

14. The respondent claims that since the respondent city manager relied upon the advice of his attorney, that a civil penalty is not appropriate.

15. It is found that a civil penalty is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case.

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

1. Henceforth, the respondent shall comply with the requirement of 1-19(a), G.S., to supply copies of requested records promptly.

Docket #FIC 89-100 Page 3

2. This decision should not be construed to mean that the incorrect advice of an attorney will protect a public agency from the imposition of a civil penalty. Because the facts herein demonstrate that the legal counsel consulted by the respondent does not have a complete understanding of the Freedom of Information Act, the respondent would be well-advised to consult with Commission attorneys when he has questions regarding the applicability of exemptions to disclosure. The Commission staff, easily reached by telephone, will be able to refer the respondent to appropriate precedents and advisory opinions.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 1989.

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 89-100 Page 4

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

PAUL CHOINIERE AND THE DAY

P.O. Box 1231

47 Eugene O'Neill Drive

New London, CT 06320

ERNEST ZMYSLINSKI, NORWICH CITY MANAGER

c/o Konstant W. Morell, Esquire

121 Broadway

Norwich, CT 06360

and

Marc S. Mandell, Esquire

71 East Town Street

Norwich, CT 06360

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Christopher Keating and Greenwich Time,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 89-148

Personnel Director, Town of Greenwich,

Respondent December 13, 1989

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 25, 1989, at which time the respondent appeared but the complainants did not appear to prosecute their complaint.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 1989.

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 89-148 Page 2

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

CHRISTOPHER KEATING AND GREENWICH TIME

20 East Elm Street

P.O. Box 1439

Greenwich, CT 06836

PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, TOWN OF GREENWICH

c/o Thomas N. Sullivan, Esquire

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission