FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In
the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Cindy
Ouelette and Taxpayers Association of Norwich,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-24
Norwich
City Manager, Yantic Volunteer Fire Co., East Great Plain Volunteer Fire Co.,
Taftville
Volunteer Fire Co., Occum Volunteer Fire Co. and Laurel Hill Volunteer Fire
Co.,
Respondents October 17, 1994
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on April 5, 1994, at which time the complainants and
the respondents 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. It is found that the the complainants by letters dated January 4,
1994, requested that the respondents Yantic Volunteer Fire Co., East Great
Plains Volunteer Fire Co., Taftville Volunteer Fire Co., Occum Volunteer Fire
Co. and Laurel Hill Volunteer Fire Co., (hereinafter "Yantic",
"East Great Plains", "Taftville", "Occum" and
"Laurel Hill" fire companies or "respondent fire
companies") make available copies of their charters, by-laws, policies and
procedures, and also the names and addresses of their current active members.
2. It is found that the respondents Yantic, East Great Plains,
Taftville and Occum fire companies denied the complainants' records request by
letter dated January 11, 1994, while the respondent Laurel Hill failed to
respond.
3. It is found that the complainants then, by letter dated January
17, 1994, requested the same records, described in paragraph 2, above, this
time from the respondent Norwich City Manager (hereinafter "city manager").
Docket
#FIC 94-24 Page
2
4. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainants
appealed to the Commission by letter dated January 31, 1994 and filed with the
Commission on February 1, 1994, alleging that the respondents violated the
Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying them access to copies
of the requested records.
5. It is found that the respondent Norwich City Manager is a public
agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
6. The respondents Yantic, East Great Plains, Taftville, Occum and
Laurel Hill fire companies contend that they are private organizations and
therefore not subject to the disclosure requirements of the FOI Act.
7. In addition, the members of the respondent fire companies
(hereinafter "members") object to the disclosure of their home
addresses claiming such disclosure would subject them to potential harassment,
personal discomfort and be invasive of their personal privacy.
8. The test for determining whether entities such as the respondent
fire companies are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a) and
1-19(a), G.S., is set forth in Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOI
Commission, 181 Conn. 544 (1980) and the criteria are (1) the level of
government funding; (2) the extent of government involvement or regulation; (3)
whether the entity performs a governmental function; and (4) whether the entity
was created by the government. Further,
pursuant to Connecticut Humane Society v. FOI Commission, 218 Conn. 757, 761
(1991), all four of the foregoing factors are not necessary for a finding of
functional equivalence. Rather all four
factors are to be considered cumulatively, with no single factor being
essential or conclusive.
9. Section 7-301, G.S., permits any city to appropriate funds to
volunteer fire companies for services to be provided within the confines of
such city when it is determined to be in the public interest to do so.
10. It is found that the city of Norwich (hereinafter
"city") funded the respondent fire companies to the tune of
$337,000.00 for the fiscal year 1993-1994.
11. With respect to the respondent Occum fire company, it is found
that during the fiscal year 1993-1994 the city provided the fire company with
funding totalling approximately $48,616.00.
It is also found that the city owns the building which houses the fire
company and funds expenses of the fire company including fuel, telephone,
water, gas, electric, pagers, building and ground maintenance, and materials
and supplies.
Docket
#FIC 94-24 Page
3
12. With respect to the
respondent Taftville fire company, it is found that the city funds 95% of the
respondent's budget. It is also found
that the city funds such expenses of the fire company including materials and
supplies, fuel, telephone, water, gas, electric, building and ground
maintenance, portable radios, computers and pagers.
13. With respect to the
respondent Yantic fire company, it is found that the city funds such expenses
of the fire company including materials and supplies, fuel, telephone, water,
gas, electric, building and ground maintenance, portable radios, computers
pagers, auto supplies and maintenance, radio service, equipment and furniture
maintenance, fire hose and fittings, and firemens' gear. It is also found that over the last five
years the respondent received city funding of approximately $100,000 to
purchase equipment. In addition, the
respondent's fire company is housed on property owned by the city.
14. With respect to the respondent Laurel Hill fire company, it is
found that during the fiscal year 1993/1994 the city funded the respondent to
the tune of $34,520.00 of which $6,000.00 was allocated for the purchase of
hose and fittings, $3000.00 for repairs and maintenance of building and
$4000.00 to firemen training. Among the
other expenses funded by the city were building and ground maintenance, water,
gas, electric, fuel, telephone, equipment and furniture maintenance, radio
service and auto supplies and maintenance.
15. With respect to the respondent East Great Plains fire company, it
is found that during the fiscal year 1993/1994 the city funded the respondent
to the tune of $85,000.00 of which $15,000.00 was allocated for auto supplies
and maintenance, $5000.00 for building and ground maintenance, $5000.00 for
portable radios and $2500.00 for physical fitness equipment. Among the other expenses funded by the city
were fuel, water, gas, electric, telephone, smoke ejectors, hazardous material
equipment, maintenance of station, equipment and furniture maintenance, radio
service, auto supplies and maintenance.
In
addition, the city owns the building which houses the fire company.
16. It is concluded that the respondent fire companies receive
substantial government funding as a significant portion of their financial
obligations are paid with public funds.
17. It is found that the respondent fire companies are subject to a
variety of state laws regulating fire protection and volunteer firemen,
including 7-314, 7-314a, 7-322a and 7-322b, G.S.
18. Section 7-308, G.S., obligates the city to assume liability for
damages to persons or property caused by the respondent fire companies'
members.
Docket
#FIC 94-24 Page
4
19. In addition, 7-313c, G.S., authorizes the city to indemnify
volunteer members of fire companies for tuition and textbook expenses incurred
on successful completion of fire technology and administration courses.
20. It is concluded that the respondent fire companies are subject to
substantial government regulation.
21. It is found that the purpose and function of the respondent fire
companies, as well as the duty they have assumed, is the protection of persons
and property against loss by fire.
22. It is concluded that the respondent fire companies perform a
governmental function.
23. It is found that the respondent fire companies were privately
organized or created by citizens during the years 1847 and 1947.
24. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent fire companies
were not created by the government.
25. However, based on the totality of the factors considered, it is
concluded that the respondent fire companies are public agencies within the
meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S., and are therefore subject to the disclosure
requirements of the FOI Act.
26. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides that:
Except 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.
[Emphasis added]
27. It is found that the respondent fire companies maintain records
responsive to the complainants' request and further that such records are
public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
28. With respect to the objection to disclosure made by the fire
companies' members, described in paragraph 7, above, it is found that the
respondent fire companies failed to prove that any of the requested records are
exempt from disclosure pursuant to federal or state law as mandated by
1-19(a), G.S.
Docket
#FIC 94-24 Page
5
29. With respect to the complainants' January 17, 1994 request for
records directed to the city manager and described in paragraph 4, above, it is
found that the city manager never responded to the complainants' request.
30. It is found that the city manager does not personally maintain
copies of the requested records, however, the city manager was aware that the
city's personnel department, over which he exercises authority, maintains
records of the names and addresses of the respondent fire companies' members.
31. It is also found that the city manager has in the past directed
the city's personnel department to release to the complainants records of the
names of the respondent fire companies' members who receive benefits from the
city's Volunteer Fire Fighters Relief Fund plan.
32. It is concluded that the respondents violated the complainants
rights by failing to provide them with prompt access to copies of the requested
records.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent fire companies shall immediately provide the
complainants with access to copies of the requested records, as described in
paragraph 1 of the findings, above.
2. The respondent city manager shall immediately provide the
complainants with access to copies of the requested records presently being
maintained in the city's personnel department.
3. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the
provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of
October 12, 1994.
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket
#FIC 94-24 Page 6
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:
CINDY
OUELLETTE and TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION OF NORWICH
P.O.
Box 1250
Norwich,
CT 06360-1250
NORWICH
CITY MANAGER
c/o
Marc Mandell, Esq.
71
East Town Street
Norwich,
CT 06360
YANTIC
VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., EAST GREAT PLAIN VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., TAFTVILLE VOLUNTEER
FIRE CO., OCCUM VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. and LAUREL HILL VOLUNTEER FIRE CO.,
c/o
Frank A. Manfredi, Esq.
Cotter,
Greenfield & Manfredi, P.C.
P.O.
Box 6002
Yantic,
CT 06389
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission