|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Douglas
A. Frey, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-277 |
|
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 #FIC1999-127, 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 June 9, 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 addresses the subject of JC&P’s bill for services rendered in connection with the Horace Porter School (hereinafter “the construction”) project;
b) all correspondence from any employee or representative of the town of Columbia to JC&P which addresses the subject of JC&P’s bill for services rendered in connection with the construction project, limited to correspondence dated January 1995 through March 1999; and
c) all correspondence from any employee or representative of the town of Columbia to JC&P which addresses the subject of the change orders to the construction project.
3. By letter dated June 11, 1999, the respondents’ attorney informed the complainant that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, were in his custody, that the complainant could inspect all records related to the construction project, and mark those he wished to copy.
4. By letter dated and filed with the Commission on June 14, 1999, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by denying him 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 the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.]
7. It is found that all records related to the construction project are in the custody of the respondents’ attorney and comprise some 50,000 pages organized in several boxes.
8. It is found that, prior to the request described in paragraph 2, above, the complainant had inspected the construction project records on several occasions and had received copies of any records he had asked to be copied.
9. It is found that, after the complainant received the letter described in paragraph 3, above, he did not make arrangements to inspect and/or copy the requested records.
10. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant alleged that correspondence not found during his prior inspections must be in existence since records that he did copy indicated changes in invoice amounts, which logically would have required such correspondence. However, it is found that the respondents have provided the complainant with 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.
11. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.
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.
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
FIC1999-277FD/mrb/01/13/00