The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 25, 1998, 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.

	2.  By letter dated February 2, 1998, the complainant requested of the respondent 
town manager to inspect:

a.  all correspondence, notes, contracts, invoices, payment records, quotes or other 
public records or files regarding the acquisition and implementation of a computerized 
dispatch and record keeping system by the respondent town from Spillman Systems for 
use by the Glastonbury Police Department (hereinafter “GPD”);

b.  any public records or files including correspondence, faxes, e-mail or notes 
between project vendor, Stillman Systems, and any employee or official of the respondent 
town or the GPD;

c.  any written transcriptions or notes of meetings, or other public records or files, 
during which this computer project was discussed by any employee or official of the 
respondent town or the GPD; and

d.  the personal appointment schedules for the period January 1, 1997 through 
December 31, 1997 for the following officials and employees of the respondent town or 
the GPD:  Joseph Kelley; Kurt Cavanaugh; Richard Johnson; John Makiaris; James 
Thomas; Thomas Hayes; Dennis Durkin; Dennis Smith; and Susan Cochrane.

	3.  By letter dated February 6, 1998, the respondent town manager indicated there 
would be a fee for copies and sought confirmation of the materials requested because the 
cost would be in excess of ten dollars.

	4.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on February 9, 1998, the 
complainant appealed to the Commission noting that his February 2, 1998 request was for 
the inspection of records, not for copies, and alleging that the respondents had in effect 
denied his request for timely access under the Freedom of Information (hereinafter 
“FOI”) Act.

	5.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondents offered to provide the 
complainant with access to the requested records described in paragraphs 2a, 2b and 2c of 
the findings, above.  The complainant accepted this offer in satisfaction of his request 
with respect to those requested records.  The respondents also represented that they would 
diligently and in good faith search for those records, and sought the complainant’s 
assurance that he would continue to communicate with them in their effort to fully 
comply with the complainant’s request described in paragraphs 2a, 2b and 2c of the 
findings, above, and to help identify those specific records he is seeking.  The 
complainant represented that he would comply with this request.

	6.  Thus, the only issue remaining to be determined by the Commission involves 
access to those records described in paragraph 2d of the findings, above.

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

“every person shall have the right to inspect . . . [public] 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.”

	8.  The respondents contend that the personal appointment schedules of the 
subject officials and employees are not public records under the FOI Act and therefore 
they are under no legal obligation to provide them, to the extent they exist at all, to the 
complainant.

	9.  In clarification of his request described in paragraph 2d of the findings, above, 
the complainant stated that he is not interested in access to private or personal matters 
contained in the requested appointment schedules.  Rather, he is interested only in those 
portions of documents in which the subject officials and employees recorded their official 
town business.

	10. Section 1-18a(5), G.S., defines public records or files for purposes of the FOI 
Act as:

“any 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.”

	11. It is found that some officials and employees of the respondent town are 
provided at town expense with calendar-planners which might contain the information 
requested by the complainant, as clarified in paragraph 9 of the findings, above.  The 
respondents represented that they are willing to provide the complainant with access to 
those portions of the town purchased calendar-planners and other records of the subject 
officials and employees for the year 1997 which refer to town business.  They maintain, 
however, that they have no control over privately purchased calendar-planners and, 
accordingly, they are not public records for purposes of the FOI Act.

	12. It is found that those calendar-planners and other similar records which record 
the official business of the subject officials and employees, purchased by the respondent 
town, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(5), G.S.

	13. It is also found that those calendar-planners and other similar records which 
record the official business of the subject officials and employees, but which are 
purchased and kept by the subject officials and employees in their personal capacity, are 
not public records within the meaning of §1-18a(5), G.S.

	14. Because the complainant is not seeking access to those portions of town 
purchased records that contain personal business, the Commission need not address this 
issue.

	15. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §1-19(a), G.S., by 
failing to promptly provide the complainant with access to inspect those portions of town 
purchased calendar-planners and other similar records, used by the subject officials and 
employees for the year 1997, to record town business.

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

	1.  The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with access to inspect 
those portions of town purchased calendar-planners and other similar records of those 
officials and employees identified in paragraph 2d of the findings, above, for the year 
1997, which contain the appointment schedules of those individuals relating to official 
town business.

	2.  The respondents shall also provide the complainant with a list of the officials 
and employees identified in paragraph 2d of the findings, above, who did not use or 
maintain a town purchased calendar-planner or other similar record for the year 1997, to 
record appointment schedules concerning official town business.

	3.  The remainder of the complaint is hereby dismissed.

	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of May 27, 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:

David Raymond Markman
72 Oxford Street
Hartford, CT 06105

Town Manager, Town of Glastonbury and Town of Glastonbury
c/o Atty. Jean M. D’Aquila
Halloran & Sage LLP
One Goodwin Square
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-4303

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-039/FD/tcg/05291998