FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Sydney M. Libby,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-304
Mayor of Middletown,
Respondent August 9, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 31, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 95-103, Sydney M. Libby v. Mayor of Middletown, was consolidated for hearing with this case.
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 dated August 11, 1994 and filed with the Commission on August 16, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to a copy of an audio tape of a July 18, 1994 meeting of the Eastern Connecticut Resource and Recovery Authority (hereinafter "the ECRRA tape").
3. It is found that the complainant requested a copy of the ECRRA tape from the respondent on August 8, 1994.
4. It is found that a few days following the complainant's request the respondent's secretary denied the request and indicated to the complainant that there was no audio tape of the ECRRA July 18, 1994 meeting.
5. It is found that the respondent is the custodian of ECRRA records.
6. It is found that ECRRA records, including the audio tape at issue, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
7. It is found that at the time of the complainant's
Docket #FIC 94- 304 Page 2
request no audio tape of the ECRRA July 18, 1994 meeting existed.
8. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the complainant's rights by failing to provide him with a copy of the ECRRA tape as no tape existed at the time of the complainant's request.
9. The Commission is however, troubled by the respondent's position that even if an audio tape had been created it is under no obligation to keep such a tape.
10. It is concluded that while the respondent is under no obligation to create an audio tape, once created, such a tape becomes a public record and must be maintained in accordance with sound record management practices.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission strongly recommends that the respondent contact the State Public Records Administrator to ensure that he and all employees are apprised of appropriate record management practices and record retention and destruction statutes.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 9, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-304 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:
Sydney M. Libby
251 Court Street, Apt. #3
Middletown, CT 06457
Mayor of Middletown
c/o Timothy P. Lynch, Esq.
DeKoven Drive
P.O. Box 1300
Middletown, CT 06457-1300
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission