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 90-349
Easton First Selectman,
Respondent March 27, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 17, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 90-301, Allen E. Sullivan, Jr. v. Easton Planning and Zoning Commission and Docket #FIC 90-322, Allen E. Sullivan, Jr. v. Easton First Selectman and Chairman, Easton Board of Finance 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. On August 28, 1990, the complainant requested copies of several records from the respondent, including copies of:
(a) the agenda, minutes and tape cassettes of the August 27, 1990 special meeting of the selectmen;
(b) photocopies of the bids submitted for the contract to prepare the September 1988 High Ridge Road reconstruction plans exhibited at the August 27, 1990 special meeting of the selectmen;
(c) photocopies of the bids submitted for the contract to prepare the 1990 revised High Ridge Road reconstruction plans exhibited at the August 27, 1990 special selectmen's meeting;
Docket #FIC 90-349 Page Two
(d) reduction photocopies of both the September 1988 and revised 1990 High Ridge Road reconstruction plans;
(e) normal sized photocopies of the plan key and preparer's signature for both the September 1988 and revised 1990 High Ridge Road reconstruction plans; and
(f) photocopies of the bids submitted for the contract to prepare the Flat Rock Road reconstruction plans submitted by the Director of Public Works at the October 27, 1987 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
3. It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with items 2(b) through (f) on August 31, 1991.
4. It is found that when the respondent provided the complainant with items 2(b) through (f) on August 31, 1991, he informed the complainant that because some of the records requested were not yet complete, the minutes and the tape recording would be provided during the next week.
5. On September 19, 1990 the complainant filed a letter of complaint with the Commission alleging that the respondent had failed to provide him with the requested agenda, minutes, and tape recording.
6. It is found that the respondent and/or his secretary forgot about the portion of the complainant's request concerning the agenda, minutes, and the tape recording until they received notice of the complainant's Freedom of Information complaint on or about October 22, 1990.
7. It is found that on or about October 22, 1990, the respondent notified the complainant that the requested records were ready for him.
8. It is further found that the complainant made no attempt to inquire why the requested records were not provided before filing his Freedom of Information complaint.
9. It is found that the complainant did not pick up the requested records until November 7, 1990.
10. It is concluded that the requested records were not provided promptly as required by 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
11. The complainant urges the Commission to impose penalties upon the respondent because the delay in responding to his complaint is part of a pattern of failing to comply with the
Docket #FIC 90-349 Page Three
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
12. The complainant urges the Commission to take administrative notice of numerous Freedom of Information Act violations found against agencies of the town of Easton including Docket Numbers #FIC 89-298, #FIC 89-142, #FIC 89-192, #FIC 89-131, #FIC 88-102, #FIC 89-51, #FIC 89-51, and #FIC 88-393.
13. It is found that only two of the complaints cited by the complainant, #FIC 89-142, Regina Link v. First Selectman of the Town of Easton, and #FIC 88-393, Paul F. Miller v. Office of the First Selectman et al. were directed against the Office of the First Selectman, and that neither of these complaints were directed against the respondent, Hilmer Nelson, but rather they were directed against the former First Selectman of Easton.
14. It is found under the circumstances that there is not a pattern of violations of the Freedom of Information Act involving the respondent, and that under the facts of this case it is not appropriate to impose a civil penalty upon him.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall henceforth provide copies of records promptly as required by 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
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 90-349 Page Four
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 FIRST SELECTMAN
c/o E. Jane McBride, Esq.
Williams, Cooney & Sheehy
One Lafayette Circle
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission