FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

William Jezouit,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-109

 

Windsor Housing Authority and Board

of Commissioners, Windsor Housing Authority

 

                                Respondents                        December 27, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 25, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The caption of this case was corrected to reflect the proper named respondents.

 

                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 letter of complaint dated and filed on April 10, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to a copy of a survey pertaining to the privatization of the respondent Authority.

 

                3.  Specifically, it is found that the complainant on March 30, 1995 requested that the respondent Board provide him with access to a copy of a survey done by the respondent Board in connection with the privatization of the respondent Authority.

 

                4.  It is found that the then acting executive director of the respondent Authority, by letter dated April 9, 1995, acknowledged receiving the complainant's request on March 30, 1995, informed him of her unsuccessful attempts to obtain a copy of the requested "survey, or RFP" (hereinafter "requested record") from two of the respondent Board's commissioners and that at the suggestion of one of the respondent Board's commissioners she had faxed the request to attorney Herbert Reckmeyer on March 30, 1995, to which fax she had not yet received a response.  The April 9 letter also indicated that the request would be honored as soon as she obtained a copy of the requested record.

 

Docket #FIC 95-109                                             Page 2

 

                5.  It is found that the requested record is a proposed request for proposal for management services of the respondent Authority's section 8 and state elderly/certified disabled programs (hereinafter "RFP"), which was distributed among members of the respondent Board at its March 27, 1995 regular meeting.

 

                6.  It is found that the April 9 response, described in paragraph 4, above treats the complainant's request for a "survey" as a request for the RFP as described in paragraph 5, above.

 

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

 

                8.  It is found that the respondent Board reviewed the requested RFP at its April 12, 1995 special meeting.

 

                9.  It is also found that the complainant eventually obtained a copy of a RFP on April 12, 1995.

 

                10.  The complainant however, contends that the RFP obtained on April 12, described in paragraph 9, above, is different from the RFP distributed at the respondent Board's March 27 meeting, as described in paragraph 5, above.

 

                11.  It is found that the complainant's position is corroborated by the respondent Authority's executive director who attended the March 27 meeting, described in paragraph 5, above, and testified that the RFP discussed at the March 27 meeting is different from the one the complainant obtained on April 12, 1995.

 

                12.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                                Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.  [Emphasis added].

 

Docket #FIC 95-109                                                 Page 3

 

                13.  The respondents have made no claim that the RFP at issue is exempt from disclosure.

 

                14.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the complainant's rights by failing to promptly provide him with access to a copy of the RFP discussed at the March 27, 1995 meeting.

 

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

 

                1.  The respondents shall within one week of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter provide the complainant with a copy of the RFP discussed at the respondent Board's March 27, 1995 meeting, free of charge.  In addition, the respondent Board shall simultaneously provide the complainant with an affidavit, signed by all of its members who were present at the March 27, 1995 meeting attesting that the RFP discussed at the March 27, 1995 meeting has been so provided to the complainant.

 

                2.  Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 27, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-109                                             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:

William Jezouit

40 Henry Street #8

Windsor, CT 06095

 

Windsor Housing Authority

c/o Mary Ellen Wolf, Executive Director

Windsor Housing Authority

Shad Run Terrace

40 Henry Street

Windsor, CT 06095

 

Board of Commissioners, Windsor Housing Authority

c/o W. Herbert Beckmeyer, Esq.

Arnold & Associates

80 Cedar Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission