FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Albert Daigle,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 92-247

Marlborough Association for Senior Housing,

Respondent January 19, 1993

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 21, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

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

1. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on July 29, 1992, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 91-241, Albert Daigle v. Marlborough Association for Senior Housing, (hereinafter "Docket #FIC 91-241").

2. The Commission takes administrative notice of its record and decision in Docket #FIC 91-241.

3. In Docket #FIC 91-241, the Commission ordered the respondent to provide the complainant with copies of the financial records requested by him during August 1991, within two weeks of the date of mailing the final decision.

4. The final decision in Docket #FIC 91-241 was mailed on March 3, 1992.

5. The sole issue for decision in this case is whether the respondent provided the complainant with the financial records at issue in Docket #FIC 91-241.

6. It is found that the respondent was in possession of some of the financial records at issue, as of March 3, 1992. specifically, records of checkbook balances, passbook account balances and investment account balances; but was not in possession of quarterly reports, because they did not exist.

Docket #FIC 92-247 Page 2

7. It is found that the respondent delivered all existing financial records in its possession to the town for storage some time during the period of March, 1992 and early April, 1992.

8. The respondent concedes that the actual financial records at issue were not provided to the complainant.

9. The respondent argues that the complainant was provided with copies of minutes of its meetings wherein balance and accounting information were provided as part of the "treasurer's report" for the respondent's checking, passbook and investment accounts.

10. It is found that the respondent has failed to comply with the FOIC's order in Docket #FIC 91-241 to provide the complainant with copies of the actual financial records at issue therein.

11. Section 1-21k(b), G.S., states, in pertinent part, that:

"Any member of any public agency who fails to comply with an order of the [FOIC] shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and each occurrence of failure to comply with such order shall constitute a separate offense."

12. It is further found that there was no reasonable ground for the respondent's denial of the complainant's rights under 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., and as provided in the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 91-241, issued pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.

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

1. The respondent shall, within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of the notice of final decision in this case, provide the complainant by mail with a copy of all existing financial records at issue in Docket #FIC 91-241 and initially requested by the complainant in August 1991. The respondent shall bear the cost of copying and mailing the records to the complainant.

Docket #FIC 92-247 Page 3

2. The respondent shall, within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the notice of Final Decision in this matter, serve upon this Commission a properly executed affidavit attesting to complete compliance with paragraph 1 of this order.

3. If the affidavit, described in paragraph 2 of this order, is not received by the Commission within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter, the Commission shall refer such non-complaince to the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution in accordance with 1-21k, G.S.

4. If the respondent fails to comply with paragraphs 1 or 2 of this order by the specified date, then the officers and board members of the respondent agency shall be ordered to appear before the Commission to show cause why civil penalty sanctions should not be levied against them. In this regard, the Commission calls the respondent's attention to 1-21i(b), G.S., which provides in pertinent part that this Commission may impose a civil penalty of "not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars" against the custodian or other public agency official directly responsible for the denial of a right created under 1-15 and 1-19, G.S., when said denial occurs without reasonable grounds.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of January 15, 1993.

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 92-247 Page 4

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:

Albert Daigle

173 South Main Street

Marlborough, CT 06447

Marlborough Association for Senior Housing

c/o Atty. John H. Goodrich, Jr.

Gordon, Muir & Foley

10 Columbus Boulevard

Hartford, CT 06106-1944

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission