FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Robert J. Koskelowski,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-100
Seymour Board of Finance,
Respondent December 22, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 2, 1993, at which time the complainant, but not the respondent, appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket # FIC 93-133 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.
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 dated April 8, 1993 and filed with the Commission on April 13, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act by:
a. failing to make available as of April 8, 1993, the minutes of regular meetings held February 23 and March 23, 1993, and special meeting held March 30, 1993;
b. failing to adequately set forth in the February 3, 1993 minutes the date and time to which the meeting was continued and/or adjourned;
c. failing to file timely minutes for budget workshops held on February 2 and 3, 1993;
d. failing to keep tape recordings of their meetings at an office in the town hall;
e. overcharging for copies of two tapes of its regular meeting held on March 23, 1993;
Docket #FIC 93-100 Page 2
f. failing to reimburse the complainant money paid for a copy of a tape, although the complainant was sent the wrong tape; and
g. failing to make available a copy of the line-item breakdown budget records.
3. Section 1-19(a), G.S., states in pertinent part that an agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.
4. Section 1-21(a), G.S., states in pertinent part that "minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer."
5. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that the respondent held regular meetings on February 23 and March 23, 1993, and a special meeting on March 30, 1993.
6. Also, with respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that the respondent failed to make available within seven days minutes of its February 23, March 23 and March 30, 1993 meetings as required by 1-21(a), G.S.
7. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b., above, it is found that the respondent failed to adequately set forth in the February 3, 1993 minutes the date and time to which the meeting was continued and/or adjourned.
8. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c., above, it is found that the respondent filed minutes for its February 2 and 3, 1993 meetings on February 22, 1993, thereby failing to make available such minutes within seven days of the respective meetings.
9. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part:
[E]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency ... shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.... Each ... agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no
Docket #FIC 93-100 Page 3
such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located ....
10. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2d., above, it is found that the respondent keeps and maintains its records at the Seymour town hall.
11. Also, with respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2d., above, it is found that as of the date of the hearing in this matter the respondent has failed to keep and maintain the tape recordings of its meetings in the office of the clerk as required by 1-19(a), G.S.
12. Section 1-15, G.S., states in pertinent part that:
If any copy provided in accordance with ... [the FOI Act] requires a transcription, or if any person applies for a transcription of a public record, the fee for such transcription shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency.
13. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2e., above, it is found that the respondent charged the complainant a total of $34.00 for copying two tapes of the respondent's March 24, 1993 meeting. The breakdown of the charges was as follows: 2 tapes at $1.00 each totalling $2.00, and 3 hours taping time plus one quarter hour travel time totalling $32.00.
14. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a), G.S., when it charged the complainant fees not authorized by the FOI Act.
15. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2f., above, it is found that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the allegation of what amounts to a commercial dispute.
16. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2g., above, it is found that by letter dated April 7, 1993 the complainant requested of the respondent a copy of the line-item breakdown of the budget to be discussed at a public hearing scheduled for April 19, 1993.
17. It is found that as of the date of the hearing in this matter the respondent has failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the requested line-item breakdown.
Docket #FIC 93-100 Page 4
18. It is concluded that the requested line-item breakdown records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
19. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with prompt access to a copy of the line-item breakdown records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed with respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2f., of the findings, above.
2. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b. of the findings, above, the respondent shall correct its minutes for the budget workshop held on February 3, 1993, which minutes shall set forth the date and time to which the meeting was continued and/or adjourned.
3. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2a. and 2g. of the findings, above, the respondent shall forthwith, and at no charge, provide the complainant with copies of all requested records not yet provided to the complainant.
4. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2c., 2d. and 2e. of the findings, above, the respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the requirements set forth in 1-15, 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 22, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-100 Page 5
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:
Robert J. Koskelowski
c/o Richard S. Bruchal, Esq.
330 East Main Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
Seymour Board of Finance
c/o Ms. Joyce P. Abramczyk
20 Bungay Road
Seymour, CT 06483
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission