|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Dave
Gilmore and Coalition |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket #FIC 1999-486 |
|
Director,
Office of Community Development, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
March
8, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 17, 1999, at which time the complainants 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated
September 8, 1999, to the respondent director, the complainants made a request
for the following information:
a.
“funding approved
or encumbered for Bonner Housing for the past three years by program year and
amounts from HOME or other CD sources;
b.
funding approved and
or encumbered for Mount Olive Senior Shuttle and Senior Center for the past
three years by year and amount from CD or other sources from your department;
c.
any additional
funding to other programs with the same principles [sic] named in Bonner
Housing and/or Senior Shuttle program run at Mount Olive AM Church (list
status of Bonner Housing or provide source documents for designation or
certification of – profit, not for profit, 501c3, CHDO, ect.);
d.
funding approved
and/or encumbered to LAE Associates for the past three years HOME and/or CD
managed accounts (include all funds and/or checks made payable to Linda Evans
in her consultant capacity on all accounts and draw downs for the past three
years - don’t forget Waterbury OIC related activities also);
e.
Home Program
description this current funding year and CHDO allocation limits;
f.
amount
allocated/offered this program year from HOME Program to the city of
Waterbury;
g.
a list of funding
amounts for all projects approved this program year from Home Program
projections for balance.
h.
a copy (RFP) request
for proposals for the past three years for HOME Program including this current
year as well;
i.
a copy of selection
criteria, who was involved and grading approval documentation for projects
this program year and the previous three years for HOME Program awards;
j.
information on how
much Bonner houses sell for, the profit margin of these sales and how they are
tracked/monitored, and the amount of the reprogramming;
k.
a copy of monitoring
reports for Bonner housing initiatives for the past three years by project and
information on whether the unit recipients renters and buyers are low to
moderate-income beneficiaries as defined by HOME;
l.
information regarding
what percentage of HOME funding per year, to date, has been awarded and left
over per year and whether the money has been returned.”
The
complainants informed the respondents that if three years worth of records was
not available, whatever records HUD required the respondents to maintain would
be acceptable and that the respondent director should inform the complainants
if more than 72 hours was needed to comply with their request.
3.
By letter dated
September 13, 1999, the corporation counsel for the City of Waterbury
responded to the complainant’s September 8, 1999, request letter confirming
that it had been received, that the complainants’ request was being
reviewed, and that a further response would be forthcoming.
4.
By letter dated and
postmarked October 8, 1999, and filed on October 14, 1999 the complainants
appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the
Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their
request.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
[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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.
6. Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”
7.
It is found that the
requested records, to extent they exist, are public records within the meaning
of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
8.
It is found that on
November 5, 1999, the respondent director and the complainant Mr. Gilmore met
regarding the complainants’ September 8, 1999 records request at which time
the respondent director made available certain records and provided oral
explanations relevant to the complainants’ request.
9.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainants alleged that the respondents failed to provide
all of the requested records and that the oral explanations provided by the
respondent director did not comply with their request for records.
10.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainants conceded that there was miscommunication between
the complainants and the respondents that delayed compliance with the
September 8, 1999, request and that this appeal does not include a complaint
regarding the time frame in which the respondents complied with the request.
11.
With respect to the
complainants’ request described in paragraphs 2a and 2l, it is found that,
at the time of the complainants’ request, no document existed that would
have been responsive thereto; however, the respondent director created a
document containing the information requested by the complainants and provided
a copy of such to the complainants.
12.
With respect to the
complainants’ request described in paragraphs 2b, 2d, 2f, 2g, 2h, and 2i,
above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain any records responsive
to the complainants’ request.
13.
With respect to the
complainants’ request described in paragraph 2c, above, it is found that the
respondent director gave the complainants past agreements, which are the only
documents maintained by the respondents responsive to the complainants’
request.
14.
With respect to the
complainants’ request described in paragraph 2e, above, it is found that the
record responsive to the complainants’ request is a one paragraph summary
which the respondent director made available to the complainants.
15.
With respect to the
complainants’ request described in paragraph 2k, above, it is found that the
respondent provided the complainants with a copy of the requested record.
16.
It is found that the
respondents provided the complainants with all records responsive to their
request maintained by the respondents and thereby complied with the
complainants’ records request.
17.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of
§1-210(a), G.S. [formerly 1-19(a), G.S.].
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
March 8, 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:
Dave
Gilmore and Coalition for Better Government
PO Box 11444
Waterbury, CT 06703
Director,
Office of Community Development, City of Waterbury; and Office of Community
Development, City of Waterbury
c/o Atty. Dan Shaban
Office of Corporation Counsel
236 Grand Street
Waterbury, CT 06702
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-486FD/mrb/03/10/00