FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Allen E. Sullivan, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-301
Easton Planning and Zoning Commission,
Respondents March 27, 1991
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 13, 1990 and
on January 17, 1991, at which times the complainant and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. This matter
was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 90-322, Allen E. Sullivan, Jr. v.
Easton First Selectman and Chairman, Easton Board of Finance and Docket #FIC
90-349, Allen E. Sullivan, Jr. v. Easton First Selectman because of the
similarity of the subject matter and the parties.
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 filed August 15,
1990 the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to provide him with
copies of an agenda, minutes, and tape recording of its October 26, 1987
meeting.
3. By letter of request filed with the
respondent July 26, 1990 the complainant requested copies of the agenda,
minutes, and tape recording of the October 26, 1987 meeting.
4. It is found that the respondent
provided the complainant with a copy of the meeting agenda, but that it could
not locate the minutes or the tape for the October 26, 1987 meeting.
5. It is found that the respondent cannot
locate the requested minutes or the tape for the October 26, 1987 meeting.
Docket #FIC 90-301 Page Two
6. The complainant requested that a civil
penalty be imposed upon the chairman and the clerk for the respondent pursuant
to 1-21, G.S. for their failure to produce the requested tape recording
and minutes.
7. It is found that the tape recordings
for meetings of town boards are maintained informally by town officials and
employees in various places in the town hall.
8. It is found that under the
circumstances of this case a reasonable inference could be drawn that a lack of
adequate security directly resulted in the respondent's inability to provide
the requested minutes and tape.
9. It is found that although the
respondent agency has not provided adequate security for the requested minutes
and tape recording, that the evidence did not establish that the records had
been intentionally destroyed.
10. It is concluded, however, that the
respondent did not violate the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act
when it failed to provide the complainant with all of the requested records,
because it provided him with all of the records it had in its possession which
fell within the scope of the complainant's request.
11. It is concluded under the circumstances
of this case that it is not appropriate to consider the imposition of a civil
penalty in this case.
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.
2. The Commission suggests that the
respondent invite the office of the Public Records Administrator to evaluate
its methods for maintaining its records to determine whether its methods comply
with the statutes and regulations governing records management.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1991.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-301 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:
ALLEN E. SULLIVAN, JR.
41 Flat Rock Road
Easton, CT 06612
EASTON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
c/o E. Jane McBride, Esq.
Williams, Cooney & Sheehy
One Lafayette Circle
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission