FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
A-Tel, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-329 |
|
|
Department of Public Works, City of Milford, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
October 25, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 31, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared 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.
2.
By letter dated June
2, 2000 to the respondent, the complainant made a request for copies of
certain records including “copies of any and all existing ordinances,
regulations and permit process regarding the installation of pay phones on
city/town property or rights of ways.”
3.
By letter dated June
26, 2000 and filed on June 28, 2000, the complainant appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by failing to fully comply with his request.
4.
Section 1-210(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.”
5.
Section 1-212(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
. . . .”
6.
It is found that to
the extent records exist that are responsive to the complainant’s request,
such records are public records within the meaning of
§1-210(a), G.S.
7.
It is found that the
respondent provided the complainant with records responsive to the complainant’s
June 2, 2000 request but did not include any records responsive to that
portion of the request specifically described in paragraph 2, above.
8.
It is found that when
the complainant made further inquiries regarding that portion of the request
specifically described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent’s counsel
informed the complainant, by letter dated July 21, 2000, that it was her “impression
that no local law exists with respect to pay telephones” but that she would
not “categorically state that no law could in any way affect pay telephones.”
9.
The complainant
contends that the respondent’s response of July 21, 2000, was not sufficient
because it was ambiguous and non-responsive to that portion of the request
specifically described in paragraph 2, above.
10.
The respondent
contends that the July 21, 2000 letter is clear in conveying that there are no
ordinances, regulations or permit processes pertaining specifically to the
installation of pay phones on city/town property or rights of ways, but that
existing ordinances, regulations and permit processes may affect such
installation.
11.
It is found that the
respondent does not maintain any ordinances, regulations or permit processes
regarding the installation of pay phones on city/town property or rights of
ways and although the respondent’s response was somewhat elusive, it clearly
informed the complainant that no additional records existed responsive its
request.
12.
It is therefore found
that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.
13.
By letter dated July
11, 2000 and filed on July 13, 2000 to this Commission, the respondent
requested the imposition of civil penalties against the complainant for filing
a frivolous appeal.
14.
It is found that the
respondent failed to prove that the appeal taken by the complainant in this
matter was taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the
purpose of harassing the respondent, as required for the imposition of civil
penalties pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S.
15.
Consequently, the
respondent’s request for the imposition of civil penalties is hereby denied.
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.
2. The Commission encourages the respondent to use clearer and less elusive language in future responses to records requests.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 2000.
_________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
A-Tel, Inc.
Collimore and Collimore
1150 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06430-6040
c/o Marilyn J. Lipton, Esq.
City Attorney
City Hall
110 River Street
Milford, CT 06460
__________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission