FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                FINAL DECISION

 

Thomas Wells,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1997-173

 

Director of Health, Town of East Hampton;

and Conservation Commission, Town of East

Hampton

 

                        Respondents                                                     December 3, 1997

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 8, 1997, 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(1), G.S., (§1-18a(a), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997).

 

2.  By letter of complaint dated June 5, 1997 and filed on June 6, 1997 the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to inspect a report concerning the water quality of Lake Pocotopaug (hereinafter “requested record”).

 

3.  It is found that during the respondent commission’s May 8, 1997 regular meeting (“meeting”), the respondent health director made a presentation, and at that time handed out the requested record to the respondent commission members present at the meeting.  The requested record was made a part of the respondent commission’s minutes of May 8, 1997.

 

4.  It is found that at the meeting the complainant asked the respondent health director to inspect the requested record but was denied.

 

5.  It is found that the respondent health director provided the complainant with a copy of the requested record on June 7, 1997.

 

6.  Section 1-18a(5), G.S., (§1-18a(d), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997) defines “public records or files” as “[a]ny recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.”

 

7.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., further 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.

 

8.  It is found that the requested record is a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(5), G.S., (§1-18a(d), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997) and §1-19(a), G.S.

 

9.  It is also found that the respondent health director’s provision of access to the requested record on June 7, 1997 was not prompt within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S., and therefore, he violated such provision.

 

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

 

1.  Henceforth, the respondent health director shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement of §1-19(a), G.S.

 

2.  The Commission notes the apparent strained relationship between the complainant and the respondent health director and takes this opportunity to suggest that they attempt to improve their communication in a spirit of cooperation to avoid further complaints of this nature.

 

                Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 3, 1997.

 

 

 

_________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

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:

 

Thomas Wells

42 North Main Street

East Hampton, CT 06424

 

Director of Health, Town of East Hampton;

and Conservation Commission, Town of East

Hampton

c/o Richard W. Tomc

49 Main Street

Middletown, CT 06457

 

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC1997-173/FD/tcg/12031997