FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Mark Wawer,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 95-27

Mayor of Waterbury,

Respondent October 25, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 12, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated for hearing with Mark Wawer v. Mayor of Waterbury, docket #FIC 95-39.

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 by letter dated January 13, 1995, the complainant requested the following documents from the respondent:

a. A copy of the contract between the City of Waterbury and the Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Tribe dated March 3, 1994; and

b. A copy of the legal costs and expenses paid by the City of Waterbury to the law firm of Patton, Boggs and Blow, including, but not limited to, invoices, payment documentation to attorneys and investigators, hourly billing rates and expense reports, itemized billing statements indicating the time spent on each task, the amount paid for each task, and other pertinent records and receipts.

3. Having received no response to his January 13, 1995 letter, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated February 3, 1995, and filed with the Commission on February 6, 1995.

Docket #FIC 95-27 Page Two

4. It is found that the requested documents are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

5. It is also found that on or about February 10, 1995, subsequent to the complaint in this matter, the respondent complied with that portion of the complainant's January 13, 1995 request set forth in paragraph 2a., above, but did not comply with that portion of the request set forth in paragraph 2b., above.

6. With respect to that portion of the complainant's request set forth in paragraph 2a., above, it is concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by failing to comply with such request promptly, within the meaning of those sections.

7. With respect to that portion of the complainant's request set forth in paragraph 2b., above, the respondent claims that such records are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(4) and 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

8. Section 1-19(b)(4), G.S., permits an agency to withhold from disclosure "records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled."

9. It is found that at all times material to this complaint, there were no pending claims or litigation involving the respondent, the City of Waterbury and Golden Hill Paugussett Indian Tribe, within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4) and 1-18a(g) and (h), G.S.

10. Section 1-19(b)(10), G.S., permits an agency to withhold from disclosure public records constituting "communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship."

11. It is further found that the documents that are the subject of the complainants request are not records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation.

12. It is found that the records responsive to that portion of the complainant's request set forth in paragraph 2b., above, consist of invoices that set forth the time spent, work done, the identity of the individual performing the work, and the amounts billed.

Docket #FIC 95-27 Page Three

13. It is found that the records, and the information contained therein, identified in paragraph 12, above, do not constitute records of communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship, within the meaning of 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

14. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by not providing the complainant with those records responsive to that portion of his request set forth in paragraph 2b., above.

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 provide the complainant with a copy of those records, identified in paragraph 12 of the findings above, responsive to that portion of his request set forth in paragraph 2b. of the findings, above.

2. The respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., in accordance with this decision.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1995.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 95-27 Page Four

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:

Mark Wawer, Esq.

59 Central Avenue

Waterbury, CT 06702

Mayor of Waterbury

c/o Athan S. Mihalakos, Esq.

Assistant to Corporation Counsel

236 Grand Street

Waterbury, CT 06702

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission