FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Cliff Winn,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-261
East Windsor Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission,
Respondent February 27, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 29, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 90-340 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.
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 of complaint dated July 12, 1990, and filed with the Commission on July 13, 1990, the complainant alleged that on July 12, 1990 he made an in-person request to make an on-site copy of a tape of the respondent's July 3, 1990 meeting (hereinafter "meeting").
3. The complainant further alleged that the respondent would not permit him to make a copy of the tape using his tape recorder and blank tapes, and the respondent asked the complainant to put his request in writing.
4. It is found that the respondent declined the complainant's request to use his tape machine to make a copy of the meeting tape because of the agency's newly adopted policy that no one other than the respondent's secretary is to have direct access to tapes, and in an effort to avoid damage to the respondent's tapes.
5. The tape recording is a public record within the definition of 1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket #FIC 90-261 Page 2
6. It is found that the respondent offered to provide a copy of the meeting tape to the complainant.
7. It is found that the respondent instructed the complainant to put his request for a copy of the tape in writing.
8. It is also found that although the complainant neither made a written request for the tape, nor did he re-request the tape after the denial, a copy of the tape was available three days after his initial request.
9. It is further found that the complainant never contacted the respondent after his initial request for the tape to determine whether the respondent had in fact made a copy of the tape.
10. 1-15, G.S., states in relevant part that: "[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record."
11. 1-19(a), G.S., states in relevant part that: ". . . every person shall have the right to inspect [public] records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15."
12. It is concluded that nothing in 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S., requires a public agency to allow a member of the public direct access to public records so that the individual can make his own copy of the record.
13. It is further concluded that nothing in 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S., prohibited the respondent from asking the complainant to put his request for a copy of the meeting tape in writing.
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 February 27, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-261 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:
CLIFF WINN
118 Phelps Road
East Windsor, CT 06088
EAST WINDSOR CONSERVATION AND INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
c/o Richard Goodman, Esq.
Goodman, Rosenthal & McKenna, P.C.
60 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission