FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
| Robert T. Walsh, Jr., |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-503 |
|
Gladys Breedlove, Public Works Enforcement |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
April 26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 11, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony 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. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
2. By letter filed with the Commission October 26, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him the right to inspect citation records on October 13, 1999. The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in this matter.
3. It is found that the requested citation records are public records within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(5), G.S.]
4. 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…shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly….”
5. It is found that on October 13, 1999, the complainant appeared at the offices of the respondents and asked the respondent Breedlove for permission to inspect citation records.
6. It is found that on October 13, 1999, the respondent Breedlove denied the request described in paragraph 5, above. It is further found that such denial was due to the respondent Breedlove’s belief that the citation records were not relevant to the complainant’s case at the respondent department in a matter involving a citation issued to the complainant, as well as to her unfamiliarity with the FOI Act.
7. It is found that, at some point shortly after the events described in paragraphs 5 and 6, above, the respondent Breedlove was informed by a co-worker that the complainant was entitled to inspect the citation records under the FOI Act, but that such respondent did not attempt to contact the complainant in order to comply with the request described in paragraph 5, above.
8. It is found that, at the hearing in this matter, the respondents acknowledged that the complainant is entitled to inspect and copy the citation records at issue herein, and made such offer to the complainant at such time.
9. Section 1-206(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-21i(b)(2), G.S.], in relevant part states:
…upon the finding that a denial of any right created by the [FOI] Act was without reasonable grounds and after the custodian or other official directly responsible for the denial has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing…the commission may, in its discretion, impose against the custodian or other official a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars….
10. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents contended that a representative of the respondent department offered the complainant the right to inspect the citation records sometime after October 13, 1999. However, it is further found that the complainant offered conflicting testimony with respect to such contention. It is found that the respondents failed to prove such contention.
11. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents also contended that, during the course of a December, 1999 hearing at the respondent department, the complainant was afforded an opportunity to ask questions and did not renew the request described in paragraph 5, above. It is found that the fact that the complainant did not renew his request does not relieve the respondents from their obligations under the FOI Act with respect to the complainant’s outstanding October 13, 1999, request.
12. It is concluded that, under the provisions of the FOI Act, the complainant was not required to justify his reasons for making the request described in paragraph 5, above.
13. It is also concluded that the citation records are not exempt from disclosure, and that the respondents’ denial of the complainant’s request to inspect such records on October 13, 1999, violated §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.]
14. It is found that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent Breedlove’s denial of the complainant’s rights under §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], was without reasonable grounds.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
2. Forthwith, the respondent Breedlove, as the official directly responsible for the violation described in paragraph 13, of the findings, above, shall remit to this Commission a civil penalty in the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25).
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
April 26, 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:
Robert T. Walsh, Jr.
71
Bartholomew Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Gladys Breedlove, Public Works Enforcement Officer, City of Hartford; and Department of
Public Works, City of Hartford
c/o Atty. Ivan A. Ramos
Assistant Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-503FD/mrb/04/28/00