FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Lorraine
Tirella,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-438
Oxford Board of
Education,
Respondent March 8, 1995
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on January 3, 1995, at which time the complainant and
the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint. This matter was consolidated
for hearing with contested cases docket numbers FIC 94-339 and FIC 94-427.
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 of complaint filed with this Commission on December 19,
1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of
the FOI Act by failing to provide to her copies of public records she had
requested on December 6, 1994.
3. It is found that on December 6, 1994, the complainant requested
copies of the respondent's attorney's bills for October and November, 1994 and
records of a Southern New England Telephone ("SNET") reimbursement on
a SNET bill to the respondent.
4. The records identified in paragraph 3, above, are public records
within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
5. It is found that when the complainant appeared at the
respondent's office on December 13, 1994 to retrieve the requested records, she
was provided only with a copy of the October attorney's bill. She was provided with the SNET reimbursement
document later that evening at the respondent's board of education meeting.
6. The respondent claims that when the superintendent reviewed its
November bill from the town attorney, he was
Docket #FIC
94-438 Page
2
displeased with
a charge contained in it, and he returned it.
Accordingly, the respondent claims it no longer has the disputed bill to
provide to the complainant.
7. The complainant claims that she has the right under the FOI Act
to see the original bill, including the disputed charge.
8. It is concluded that the original November bill sent to and
reviewed by the respondent does not become exempt as a public record as a
result of the superintendent returning it to the billing attorney.
9. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of
1-15(a), G.S., by failing to provide a copy of the original November, 1994
attorney bill requested by the complainant.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall forthwith obtain from its attorney a copy of
the original November bill that had been sent to the respondent. The respondent shall then forward to the
complainant a copy of this bill at no charge.
2. The respondent is advised to look into the records retention
requirements of the state of Connecticut as administered by the state records
administrator, Eunice DiBella, in Rocky Hill, Connecticut.
Approved by
Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March
8, 1995.
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
94-438 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:
LORRAINE TIRELLA
11 Larkey Road
Oxford, CT 06478
OXFORD BOARD OF
EDUCATION
c/o Donald F.
Houston, Esq.
Durant, Nichols,
Houston, Mitchell & Sheahan, P.C.
1000 Lafayette
Boulevard
P.O. Box 351
Bridgeport, CT
06601-0351
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission