FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Salvatore J. Presutti,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1995-424

Lucian Pawlak, Mayor, City of New Britain; Anita

Cobb, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of New Britain;

and Judie Carroll, Clerk of Committees for Common Council,

City of New Britain,

Respondents November 20, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 30, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter dated December 4, 1995, and filed with the Commission on December 5, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging only generally that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his requests for access to inspect public information. The complainant also requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

3. It is found that by letter dated October 11, 1995 to the respondent clerk of committees, the complainant requested access to all records concerning the Beaver Street Project including approximately seven categories of information concerning such project.

4. It is found that by letter of response dated November 22, 1995, the respondent mayor informed the complainant that he served as clerk of committees from December 29, 1993 through November 13, 1995, and that in this capacity he did not maintain any files pertaining to the Beaver Street Project or any similar development projects nor did he maintain any files of members of the common council.

5. It is found that by letter dated November 17, 1995 to the respondent assistant corporation counsel (“acc”), the complainant requested to review all files and documents relating to the redevelopent of Lower Beaver Street from Lafayette Street to Broad and Main Streets, New Britain, CT.

6. It is found that by letter of response dated November 20, 1995, the respondent acc informed the complainant that he was welcome to arrange to review all files of their office concerning the Beaver Street project, which files had previously been made completely available to him for his review.

7. It is found that by letter dated November 27, 1995, the complainant made a renewed request to the respondent mayor for zoning materials relating to the redevelopment of lower Beaver Street from Lafayette Street to Broad and Main Streets, New Britain, CT. from January 1, 1987 to present.

8. It is found that by separate letter dated November 27, 1995 to the respondent clerk of committees, the complainant requested a copy of the paid receipt for the two public notices for the October 4, 1988 zoning committee meeting printed in the Herald newspaper for that purpose.

9. It is found that by telefax transmittal dated November 27, 1995, the respondent clerk of committees informed the complainant that the bookkeeper at the local newspaper was attempting to locate the copy of legal notice he sought, and that if and when she located it, she would forward it to the respondent clerk of committees.

10. It is found that to the extent they exist, the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

11. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant clarified that he still sought access to the following records:

a. A report made by the acc for Alderman

Dzwonkowski concerning the Beaver Street project;

requested in the complainant’s November 17, 1995

letter to her;

b. Zoning materials on the Beaver Street project requested

in the complainant’s November 27, 1995 letter to the mayor, and

specifically zoning committee meeting records and minutes

and public hearing records and minutes made prior to any 1988

zone changes made by the town;

c. The paid receipts for two public notices for an October 4, 1988

meeting requested in the complainant’s November 27, 1995

letter to the clerk of committees.

12. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 11a., above, it is found that the acc made a diligent search to determine whether an actual report to the alderman exists in written form, and that no such written report was found.

13. It is also found that the acc provided unfettered access to all Beaver Street file cabinets to enable him to search for any written reports, and that no such written report was found.

14. It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent acc is not in violation of any provision of the FOI Act, since no records exist responsive to that portion of the complainant’s request.

15. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 11b., above, it is found that the common council acted as the local zoning commission during the period relevant to the complainant’s records request.

16. It is also found that the complainant was never provided with minutes of the common council acting in its capacity as the zoning commission.

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

… every person shall have the right to inspect such

[public] records promptly during regular office or

business hours …

18. It is concluded that the respondents mayor and clerk of committees for the common council are in violation of §1-19(a), G.S., for failing to promptly provide the complainant with the minutes referred to in paragraph 16, above.

19. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 11c., above, it is found that the respondent clerk of committees made a diligent search for the paid receipts for two public notices for an October 4, 1988 meeting, but that no such receipts had been retained by that office.

20. It is also found that the respondent clerk of committees attempted to get copies of the above-referenced receipts from the local newspaper, without success.

21. It is concluded that with respect to the allegations contained in paragraphs 2 and 11c., above, the respondent clerk of committees did not violate the provisions of the FOI Act.

22. In its discretion this Commission declines to issue civil penalties under the facts of this case.

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

1. The respondent clerk of committees, in conjunction with the respondent mayor, shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of all existing minutes of the common council acting in its capacity as zoning commission prior to 1989, free of charge.

2. Henceforth the respondents mayor and clerk of committees shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-19(a), G.S.

3. That portion of the complaint concerning the respondent acc is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 20, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Salvatore J. Presutti

5 Ridgeview Drive

Farmington, CT 06032

Lucian Pawlak, Mayor, City of New Britain; Anita Cobb, Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of New Britain; and Judie Carroll, Clerk of Committees for Common Council,

City of New Britain,

c/o Irena J. Urbaniak, Esq.

Corporation Counsel

27 West Main Street

New Britain, CT 06051

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1995-424/FD/eal/120496