FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Robert Fromer,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 94-332

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Economic Development,

 

                                Respondent                          July 26, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 23, 1995, at which time the complainant and the 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 the complainant by letters dated September 14, 1994, requested from the respondent a copy of the a)  Client Assistance Agreement, ("agreement"), between the respondent and the Norwich Community Development Corporation ("corporation") and b) the Final Environmental Evaluation prepared by the corporation, concerning a baseball stadium assistance application made by the corporation to the respondent.

 

                3.  It is found that the respondent by letter dated September 14, 1994 informed the complainant that the request was being examined as to "what information may be available" and that he would be contacted in the near future.

 

                4.  Having failed to receive access to the requested records, the complainant by letter dated September 18, 1994 filed this appeal with the Commission on September 20, 1994.

 

                5.  At the hearing into this matter, the complainant indicated that he was limiting his appeal to his request for a copy of the agreement, described in paragraph 2, above.  In addition, the complainant requested that a civil penalty be imposed upon the respondent.

 

                6.  It is found that the agreement is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 94-332                                             Page 2

 

                7.  The respondent does not claim any exemption for its non-disclosure of the agreement.

 

                8.  The respondent contends that at the time of the complainant's request no agreement existed and subsequently when an agreement existed, the complainant's request was inadvertently overlooked and fell through the cracks.  The respondent also contends that it was inundated with frequent records requests from the complainant and that its relationship with the complainant had become strained in light of the complainant having filed a lawsuit against it.

 

                9.  It is found that by letter dated November 10, 1994, the respondent informed the complainant that a draft agreement existed which was not available for public viewing.

 

                10.  It is found that the respondent had two final agreements in place as of December 30, 1994 and January 10, 1995.

 

                11.  It is found that the respondent failed to provide the  complainant with a copy of the agreements described in paragraph 10, above.

 

                12.  It is found that at the date of this hearing the respondent has not provided the complainant with access to the agreements described in paragraph 10, above.

 

                13.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the complainant's rights when it failed to promptly provide the complainant with access to the agreements described in paragraph 10, above.

 

                14.  Further, it is concluded that the respondent's continued failure to provide access to the agreements since January 1995 and the convening of this hearing constitutes a denial without reasonable grounds.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record in the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.  Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with access to a copy of the agreements, described in paragraph 10 of the findings above, free of charge.

 

                2.  A civil penalty in the amount of $50.00 is hereby imposed upon the respondent.

 

                3.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Docket #FIC 94-332                                             Page 3

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 26, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-332                                             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. Robert Fromer

281 Gardner Avenue, J-4

New London, CT 06320

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Economic Development

c/o William J. Prensky, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission