FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Nicholas B. Wynnick,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 91-50

 

Susan Hawley, Eileen DeFazio, Carol Gagnon, Stanley Kapinos, Violet O'Donnell, Mildred Tyma, Kalman Weyner, Mary Lynn Mott, Teodor Czabala, Jr. and the Ansonia Library Board of Directors,

 

                        Respondents                 August 28, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 7, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent board appeared and presented testimony and argument on the complaint.  The hearing was then reopened at the direction of the undersigned hearing officer and continued to June 5, 1991 for the purpose of considering whether a civil penalty ought to be imposed.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent board is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  On February 5 or 6, 1991 at about 2:56 p.m., the complainant requested to inspect certain schedules, time logs and pay charts of the Ansonia Library for the weeks ending January 5, 1991 to February 2, 1991.

 

            3.  The librarian required that this request be made in writing, which the complainant did under protest at approximately 2:58 p.m. on the day in question.

 

            4.  The requested records were provided to the complainant at about 3:30 p.m. on the same day.

 

Docket #FIC 91-50                             Page 2

 

            5.  By letter of complaint dated February 28, 1991 and filed with the Commission on March 1, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent board violated the Freedom of Information Act by placing as an unauthorized precondition on his access to inspect public records the requirement that his request be made in writing.

 

            6.  In its Final Decision in contested case docket #FIC 89-43, which involved the same parties as those in this case, the Commission concluded that:

 

            a.  "[N]othing in 1-19(a), G.S., requires any person to put a request to inspect records in writing."

 

            b.  "[T]he respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by placing an illegal precondition upon the complainant's right to inspect the subject records when the respondent required a written request to inspect the records."

 

            7.  As a result of these conclusions in docket #FIC89-43, the Commission ordered the respondent board to "cause a memorandum to be circulated to each supervisory and clerical employee of the Ansonia Library, alerting them to their responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act when responding to requests to inspect public records."

 

            8.  The respondents were given the opportunity to produce evidence by way of testimony or affidavit establishing that there had been compliance with that portion of the Commission's order in docket #FIC89-43 quoted in paragraph 7 of the findings, above.  The respondents failed to provide such evidence.

 

            9.  It is therefore concluded that not only did the respondent board violate 1-19(a), G.S., when the respondent board's librarian required the complainant to make his February 5 or 6, 1991 request to inspect public records in writing, but also the respondent board probably violated the Commission's order in docket #FIC89-43.

 

            10.  The Commission, in its discretion, declines to impose a civil penalty.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  Within 30 days of the date of the final decision in this matter, the respondent board shall cause a memorandum to be circulated to each supervisory and clerical employee of the Ansonia Library informing them of their responsibiliies under the Freedom of Information Act when responding to requests to inspect public records.

 

Docket #FIC 91-50                             Page 3

 

            2.  Within 30 days of the date of the final decision in this matter, the respondent board shall cause a copy of this decision to be posted permanently at the Ansonia Library in a place where each supervisory and clerical employee of that library will be able to see and read it.

 

            3.  Within 45 days of the date of the final decision in this matter, the president of the respondent board shall submit an affidavit to the Commission attesting that there has been compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this order, above.

 

            4.  Henceforth, the respondent board shall comply strictly with the provisions of 1-19, G.S., and shall not impose any other preconditions on the right to inspect public records than those explicitly set forth in that section or other applicable sections of the state statutes.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 1991.

 

                                                                 

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-50                             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:

Nicholas B. Wynnick

55 Prospect Street

Ansonia, CT  06401

 

James E. Sheehy, Esq.

303 Wakelee Avenue

Ansonia, CT  06401

 

                                                                 

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission