FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Ernest Corriveau, Sr.,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC  89-331

 

Cheshire Town Planner,

 

                        Respondent                  March 28, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 23, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony 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.         It is found that on August 28, 1989, the complainant herein telephoned the respondent and asked him for immediate access to all earth removal permits and gravel permits, because he wanted to bring a lawsuit against the respondent.

 

            3.         It is found that on August 28, 1989, the respondent told the complainant that it would take several weeks for him to produce the records.

 

            4.         It is found that on August 29, 1989, the complainant arrived at the respondent's office and asked for all the earth removal permits.

 

            5.         It is found that on August 29, 1989, the respondent gave the complainant access to the earth removal permits which were in his office, and told the complainant to return the next day to see the remainder of the permits which were stored in the basement.

 

            6.         It is found that the respondent did not provide the complainant with the copies he wanted because the secretary of the respondent was at a meeting, and because the respondent had an appointment at 3:45 pm.

 

Docket #FIC 89-331                           page 2

 

            7.         It is found that the respondent set up a chair and table in the basement so the complainant could view the remaining permits when he returned the next day.

 

            8.         It is found that the complainant never returned to inspect the remaining permits.

 

            9.         On September 1, 1989, the complainant filed his appeal with the Commission alleging the respondent failed to provide him with prompt access to records and, also, denied him copies of records.

 

            10.       It is found that with respect to the right of access to records under 1-19(a), G.S., "promptly" does not always mean immediate access to records and copies, but rather involves a balancing of the needs of the parties.

 

            11.       It is concluded under the facts of this case that the respondent did not violate the rights of the complainant under the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

            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.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 28, 1990.

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-331                           page 3

 

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:

ERNEST CORRIVEAU, SR.

P.O. Box 373

Wallingford, CT 06492

 

CHESHIRE TOWN PLANNER

c/o Priscilla C. Mulvaney, Esq.

325 South Main Street

Cheshire, CT 06410

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission