FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In The Matter of a Complaint by                                               FINAL DECISION

 

Wendy Beres,

 

Complainant

 

against                                                                                      Docket #FIC 1997-176

 

Zoning Enforcement Officer,

Town of Newtown,

 

Respondent                                                                        January 14, 1998

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 7, 1997, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S., (§1-18a(a), G.S., prior to October 1, 1997).

 

2.     By letter dated May 29, 1997, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with a copy of the audio tape recording of the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on May 15, 1997 (hereinafter “audio tape”).

 

3.     By letter dated June 5, 1997, and filed on June 9, 1997, and supplemented by letter dated July 8, 1997, and filed on July 10, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to provide her with a copy of the audio tape.

 

4.     It is found that by letter dated June 4, 1997, and received by the complainant on June 5, 1997, the respondent informed the complainant of the following options with regard to her request for a copy of the audio tape:

 

a.      to come to the office and listen to the audio tape;

b.     to pay to have the audio tape transcribed; or

c.      to pay to receive a copy of the audio tape copied by a professional audio firm.

5.     It is found that by letter dated June 12, 1997, the complainant informed the respondent that she would pay the cost to receive a professionally copied copy of the audio tape.

 

6.     It is found that the respondent did not respond to the complainant’s June 12, 1997 letter described in paragraph 5, above. 

 

7.     Section 1-15(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides:

Any person applying in writing shall receive,

promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy

of any public record.

 

8.     It is found that the respondent maintains the audio tape and such tape is a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(5), G.S., (§1-18a(d), G.S., prior to October 1, 1997) and §1-19(a), G.S.

 

9.     It is found that the respondent forwarded the complainant’s June 12, 1997 letter, described in paragraph 5, above, to his assistant who was unable to find a professional copying service to make the requested copy of the audio tape.

 

10. It is found, however, that neither the respondent nor his assistant informed the complainant of the difficulties encountered in providing a copy of the audio tape.

 

11. It is concluded that the respondent violated §1-15(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the requested audio tape.  

 

12. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant indicated that she no longer needed a copy of the audio tape because the issue, which the tape would have addressed is now moot.

 

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

 

1.     Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the copying provision of §1-15(a), G.S.

 

 

 

                Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 14, 1998.

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________

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:

 

Wendy G. Beres

15 Turkey Hill Road

Newtown, CT 06470

 

Zoning Enforcement Officer,

Town of Newtown

c/o David L. Grogins

Cohen and Wolf. P.C.

158 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC1997-176/FD/tcg/01141997