FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by	FINAL DECISION
Sheila L. Mullowney and Norwich Bulletin,
Complainants
against	Docket #FIC 1997-098
Norwich Museum Trust, Inc.
Respondent	February 11, 1998

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 26, 1997, at which time the complainants 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. On or about March 18, 1997 through March 21, 1997 the complainants requested from the respondent access to, or copies of, all financial documents relating to the operation of the respondent from its inception, including but not limited to, annual budgets, revenues and expenses, copies of bill and payments and other reports and accounts, including records pertaining to a grant received from the then Connecticut Department of Economic Development.

2. On or about March 20, 1997, the respondent, through its counsel, denied the complainants’ request and claimed that it was not subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.

3. Having failed to receive access to or copies of the requested records, the complainants appealed to the Commission, by letter dated March 25, 1997 and filed March 26, 1997.

4. The respondent contends that it is not a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the FOI Act.

5. The test for determining whether an entity such as the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(1) (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(a)), G.S., is one of functional equivalence, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOI Commission, 181 Conn. 544, 554 (1980), and consists of the following four criteria: (1) whether the entity performs a governmental function; (2) the level of government funding; (3) the extent of government involvement or regulation; and (4) whether the entity was created by government.

6. Based upon Connecticut Humane Society v. FOI Commission, 218 Conn. 757, 761 (1991), all four factors in Woodstock, above, are not necessary for a finding of functional equivalence, but rather “all relevant factors are to be considered cumulatively, with no single factor being essential or conclusive.”

7. It is found that the respondent is a non-profit corporation incorporated in the State of Connecticut in 1994 and that pursuant to its certificate of incorporation, the respondent’s purpose is to establish and oversee the activities of non-profit museums in the Norwich area.

8. With respect to the first criterion of the functional equivalence test (governmental function), it is found that although the respondent’s purpose serves to enhance economic development, the respondent does not directly perform that or any other typical governmental function.

9. With respect to the second criterion of the functional equivalence test (level of government funding), it is found that the respondent has received substantial funding and in-kind services for studies, development, administration, and start-up and capital expenses from the City of Norwich, the Norwich Community Development Corporation (“NCDC”), and the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development. It is also found, however, that the respondent does not receive any money from government sources for its operational expenses, and that such expenses are paid for by private donations.

10. With respect to the third criterion of the functional equivalence test (extent of government involvement or regulation), it is found that members of the respondent’s board are elected by the membership of that board and that the respondent is not subject to extensive, day-to-day supervision by government authorities.

11. With respect to the fourth criterion of the functional equivalence test (whether the entity was created by government), it is found that although three citizens who were involved with the NCDC established and incorporated the respondent and although the respondent received significant government start-up assistance and contributions, the respondent was not specifically created by government.

12. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded therefore that the respondent is not the functional equivalent of a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S.

13. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent was not required, pursuant to the provisions of the FOI Act, to provide the complainants with the requested records, as described in paragraph 1, above.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

2. Although compelled by the foregoing findings to conclude that the respondent is not a public agency for purposes of the FOI Act, the Commission believes that the respondent should nevertheless consider granting the complainants’ request in this case given the public interest in knowing how substantial governmental financial and other assistance has been used by the respondent.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 11, 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:

Sheila L. Mullowney and

Norwich Bulletin

66 Franklin Street

Norwich, CT 06360

Norwich Museum Trust, Inc.

c/o Margaret S. Wilson

27 Canterbury Turnpike

Norwich, CT 06360

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1997-098/FD/tcg/02111998