FIC1999-470

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
John Dziurzynski,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 1999-470
Office of the Mayor, Town of East Haven,
		Respondents	April 12, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 29, 2000, at which time the complainant 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. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [(formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

2. It is found that by letter dated September 25, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with “all and any information, including complaints received at the mayor’s office” (hereinafter “requested records”).

3. By letter of complaint dated October 5, 1999, and filed with the Commission on October 7, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to the requested records.

4. It is found that by letter dated August 31, 1998, the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer (“ZEO”) of the town of East Haven (“town”) notified the complainant that certain conditions existed on the complainant’s property that constituted violations of the town’s zoning regulations. The ZEO’s letter made reference to “complaints” received at the respondent’s office on August 22, 1998, and a follow up inspection of the property on August 25, 1998.

5. It is found that following receipt of the ZEO’s letter, the complainant soon thereafter, in 1998, requested that the respondent and the ZEO, provide him with the records now at issue in this complaint. It is found that the complainant was told in 1998 that no written complaints exist.

6. It is found that the complainant is still looking for records of complaints filed in connection with the ZEO’s inspection of his property, described in paragraph 4, above.

7. Section 1-200(5), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(5), G.S.] defines public records to mean “[a]ny 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.”

8. Section 1-210(a), [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.] further provides:

Except 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 during regular office or business hours or 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.

9. It is found that the respondent does not have or maintain any record of complaints in connection with the inspection of the complainant’s property, described in paragraph 4, above. It is also found that the ZEO’s inspection of the complainant’s property was conducted following an anonymous call received by the respondent alleging violations of the town’s zoning regulations.

10. The complainant contends that in his view a written record of the “complaints” must exist.

11. However, it is found that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that any record of complaints do in fact exist.

12. Consequently, it is concluded that no record of complaints exist that is responsive to the complainant’s request and therefore, the respondent 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

April 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:

John Dziurzynski

123 Hunt Lane

East Haven, CT 06512

Office of the Mayor, Town of East Haven

c/o Atty. Lawrence C. Sgrignari and

Atty. Barry C. Pinkus

3127-3129 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1999-470FD/mrb/04/13/00