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