FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
John R. Pandora,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-306
Farmington Town Manager,
Respondent March 9, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 28, 1994, at which time the complainant and 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. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is found that on October 18, 1993 the complainant and respondent had a discussion concerning an October 9, 1993 Hartford Courant newspaper article about the submission of a second zoning application for a special permit for the Farmington football club, (hereinafter "second application").
3. It is found that the respondent confirmed that he had telephoned Farmington town council members (hereinafter "council members"), to get "clarification" about the second application, and that he took notes while talking to each council member.
4. It is found that on October 18, 1993, the complainant made an oral and written request to the respondent for a copy of the notes containing comments of each council member recorded by the respondent during his telephone conversations with them regarding the submission of the second application.
5. It is also found that during the October 18, 1993 conversation about the second application, the respondent further informed the complainant that he would make the requested records available to him.
Docket #FIC 93-306 Page 2
6. It is found that after consultation with counsel, by letter to the complainant dated October 19, 1993, the respondent denied the complainant's records request.
7. By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on November 9, 1993, the complainant appealed the respondent's denial.
8. It is found that the requested records are recorded "information relating to the conduct of the public's business" and thus public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
9. The respondent contends that although the requested records are kept with the files and records containing special permit requests and other materials relating to zoning applications submitted by, or on behalf of the Farmington football club, the requested records constitute "preliminary drafts and notes" which are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
10. Section 1-19(b)(1), G.S., states in pertinent part that disclosure shall not be required of:
... preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure....
11. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested notes were "antecedent or preparatory" to any other document and therefore the notes are not "preliminary" within the accepted definition of that term. See The American Heritage Dictionary (2nd. College Ed.)
12. In addition, it is also found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested notes were records of a "preliminary, deliberative and predecisional process" within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S. Van Nordstrand v. FOIC, 211 Conn. 339, 344 (1989).
13. It is found that the notes at issue are records of a series of telephone conversations from the respondent to council members for the purpose of confirming or clarifying what council members intended at their April 20, 1993 regular meeting concerning the Farmington football club.
Docket #FIC 93-306 Page 3
14. It is further found that the respondent failed to prove that the contents of the requested records are subject to any other claim of exemption.
15. It is concluded that the notes requested do not constitute preliminary notes within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S., and therefore are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
16. It is further concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the requested notes.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall immediately provide the complainant with a copy of the notes more fully described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the findings, above. A copy of the requested notes shall be provided at no cost to the complainant.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 9, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-306 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:
Mr. John R. Pandora
48 Knollwood Road
Farmington, CT 06032-1053
Farmington Town Manager
c/o Loiuse M. Goodwin, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard
CityPlace
Hartford, CT 06103
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission