|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Douglas
A. Frey, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-127 |
|
First
Selectman, Town of Columbia; |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
January
12, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 6, 1999, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC1999-277, Douglas A. Frey against First Selectman, Town of Columbia; and Town of Columbia.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent selectman is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.]
2. By letter dated March 11, 1999, the complainant requested copies of the following records:
a) all correspondence from Jeter Cook & Jepson (hereinafter “JC&J) to any employee or representative of the town of Columbia which pertains to the Horace Porter School (hereinafter “the construction project”); and
b) all correspondence from any employee or representative of the town of Columbia to JC&J which pertains to the construction project.
3. By letter dated March 16, 1999, the respondents’ attorney informed the complainant that the requested records, and all other related documents were in his custody, that the respondents could therefore not comply with the request described in paragraph 2, above, and that the requested records had been made available to him on several previous occasions.
4. By letter dated and filed with the Commission on March 17, 1999, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by denying him copies of the requested records. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept 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…
6. It is found that all records requested in this matter are in the custody of the respondents’ attorney, are comprised of some 50,000 pages organized in several boxes, and are public records within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.]
7. It is concluded that neither the fact that the requested records are maintained at the office of the respondents’ attorney, nor the fact that the respondents had provided access to the records on numerous occasions, is a valid reason to deny access to the requested records. It is therefore further concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by virtue of the letter described in paragraph 3, above.
8. It is found that, on April 9, 1999, the complainant was given access to the requested records. It is also found that the respondents were prepared to provide copies of any records the complainant asked to be copied on such date, had the complainant asked for such copies. It is further found that the respondents continue to offer the complainant access to, and copies of, the requested records.
9. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant alleged that correspondence not found during his inspection must be in existence, since other records indicate changes in invoice amounts, which logically would have required such correspondence. However, it is found that the respondents have now provided the complainant with access to all records responsive to his request, and that the correspondence alleged to be in existence
by the complainant does not exist within the custody or control of the respondents or their attorney.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. In consideration of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the findings, above, no order is recommended.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 12, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
Douglas A. Frey
Garcia & Milas
44 Trumbull Street
New Haven, CT 06510
First Selectman, Town of Columbia; and Town of Columbia
c/o Atty. Stanley Falkenstein
113 East Center Street
Manchester, CT 06040-5243
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-413FD/mrb/01/13/00