FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Albert H. Trowbridge,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 89-449
Board of Education for Regional School District #12,
Respondent July 25, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 1990, 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 ##'s FIC 89-450, 89-451, 89-458, 89-460 and 89-464.
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 25, 1989, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of all bills submitted to the respondent by the law firm of Shipman and Goodwin since June 1, 1989, and a copy of the insurance claim related to a lawsuit brought against the respondent by Ms. Mikolaycik.
3. By letter filed with the Commission on December 4, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging the respondent denied his request for copies of the attorneys' bills.
4. The respondent claims that the complainant received a copy of the attorneys' bill before he sent his written request.
5. It is found that on November 13, 1989, when the complainant was still a member of the respondent, he received a copy of a one page bill for legal services rendered in August, September and October, 1989, pertaining to one particular lawsuit.
6. It is found, however, that the complainant's written request of November 25, 1989, asked for more records than this one-page bill.
Docket #FIC 89-449 Page Two
7. It is found that the respondent never responded to the complainant's letter of request dated November 25, 1989.
8. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-21i(a), G.S., by failing to respond to the complainant's written request within four business days of receiving it.
9. It is found that a six-page, detailed bill for all the attorneys' services rendered from May through November 1989 does exist.
10. At the hearing on this matter, the hearing officer ordered the respondent to file a copy of that detailed bill with the Commission for in camera review.
11. It is found, however, that the detailed bill was sent by the attorneys to the respondent on January 12, 1990.
12. It is found that the detailed bill did not exist at the time of the complainant's records request, nor even at the time he filed his complaint with the Commission.
13. It is concluded, therefore, that at the time of the complainant's request no relevant bill existed other than the one-page described in paragraph 5, above.
The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the complete record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with 1-21i(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 25, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-449 Page Three
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:
ALBERT H. TROWBRIDGE
Old Litchfield Road
Washington, CT 06793
BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT #12
c/o Michael E. Foley, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin
799 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission