FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Marvin Edelman and Steven Edelman,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-155
Walter Pawelkiewicz, Windham First Selectman; and
Donald W. Schultz, Windham Building Official,
Respondents April 18, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 17, 1994 and January 9, 1995, at which times the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with docket numbers FIC 94-202, Steven Edelman against Walter Pawelkiewicz, Windham First Selectman; and FIC 94-207, Steven Edelman against Walter Pawlkiewicz, Windham First Selectman and Donald Schultz, Windham Building Official.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By nine separate letters of complaint all filed May 17, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that their requests for access to certain records had been denied.
3. It is found that the complainants appeared at the offices of the respondent first selectman on April 29, 1994, and asked to see the respondent's records of any telephone calls from them, any correspondence to them or concerning them, and the minutes of any meetings at which they were discussed.
4. It is found that the first selectman's secretary showed the complainants the only record of telephone calls kept, a carbon log of phone messages taken, but the complainant was dissatisfied with that record.
5. It is found that the secretary sought to have the complainants specify what particular documents they were seeking, but that the complainants declined to do so.
Docket #FIC 94-155 Page 2
6. It is found that the respondent first selectman does not maintain a file on the complainants, and that to find all the correspondence to or concerning the complainants, or minutes of meetings at which they were discussed, would require research.
7. It is concluded that the respondent first selectman did not violate the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by asking the complainants to more specifically describe their request rather than conducting research to find all the requested records.
8. It is found that the complainants also visited the offices of the respondent building official on the same day, and requested access to all correspondence concerning them and alleged building code and environmental violations, the record of telephone calls to and from them, the record of telephone calls to and from other individuals concerning them, and the transcripts of any meetings or conversations at which they were discussed.
9. It is found that all of the records requested by the complainants required research to find, which the respondent was not obligated to do under the FOI Act.
10. It is also found that the building official nonetheless performed the research necessary to compile the requested correspondence, with the exception of confidential correspondence between the building official and his legal counsel concerning a complaint from the complainants to the state codes and standards committee about the building official, and provided copies of that correspondence by letter dated May 3, 1994.
11. It is also found that the building official did not have any records that were responsive to the remainder of the request to him.
12. It is also found that the building official gave the complainants an opportunity to review the relevant building files any time they requested.
13. It is concluded that the building official did not violate the Freedom of Information Act.
14. It is found that the complainants requested from the office of the town personnel director on May 5, 1994 the first selectman's and the building official's personnel files, excluding items not subject to public inspection.
15. It is found that the complainants requested from the town finance office on May 5, 1994 any files pertaining to bills and descriptions of charges paid to two individuals (Kepple and Cody).
Docket #FIC 94-155 Page 3
16. It is found that the first selectman responded to the complainants' May 5, 1994 requests by letter dated May 10, 1994, indicating that he had asked town counsel to review the requests.
17. It is found that, following such review, the first selectman by letter dated May 27, 1994 indicated that Schultz's personnel file was available for review; that there was no personnel file for the first selectman; and that information concerning bills and descriptions of charges paid to Kepple and Cody was available for inspection.
18. The Commission notes that the issue of the complainants' request for the respondent first selectman's personnel file is decided in docket #FIC 94-207, Steven Edelman against Walter Pawelkiewicz, Windham first Selectman, and Donald Schultz, Windham Building Official.
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.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 18, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-155 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:
MARVIN EDELMAN AND STEVEN EDELMAN
Route 14
Windham Center, CT 06280
WALTER PAWELKIEWICZ, WINDHAM FIRST SELECTMAN; AND DONALD W. SCHULTZ, WINDHAM BUILDING OFFICIAL
c/o Richard S. Cody, Esq.
Michelson, Kane, Royster & Barger, P.C.
93 Oak Street
Hartford, CT 06106-1552
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission