FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Elizabeth Hamilton and The |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-299 |
|
|
First Selectman, Town of Middlefield, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 14, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case July 13, 2000, at which time the complainants 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.
2.
By letter dated June 12, 2000 and filed with the Commission on June 14,
2000, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the
respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by
withholding a legal opinion (hereinafter “opinion”) from them on the basis
that he did not want the media to have the opinion prior to the Middlefield
Board of Finance (hereinafter “board”) seeing it.
3. It is found that during the
day on May 30, 2000, complainant Hamilton tried to reach the respondent at his
office, without success, to request a copy of the opinion.
It is found that the respondent had been out of his office and busy
attending meetings all day. It is found that complainant Hamilton got hold of
the respondent at home at approximately 6-7 p.m. that evening, and at that
time requested a copy of the opinion. It
is found that the respondent denied the request indicating that he did not
want the media to have the opinion before the board received it.
It is found that on May 31, 2000, complainant Hamilton again requested
that the respondent provide her with a copy of the opinion.
The respondent informed her that he no longer had the opinion as he had
mailed the only copy to the board that morning.
It is found that on June 1, 2000, the respondent faxed a copy of the
opinion to complainant Hamilton.
4. Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
requires that “[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 during regular office or business hours or to receive
a copy of such records….” [Emphasis
added.]
5. It is found that the respondent’s denial of access to the opinion on the basis that he had not yet provided the board with it violates §1-210(a), G.S., which requires that prompt access be provided unless the requested record is exempt from disclosure by virtue of federal law or state statute.
6. It is therefore, concluded that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent could have, but failed to provide the complainants with access to the opinion on May 31, 2000, before mailing it to the board.
7. Consequently, it is further concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by denying the complainants prompt access to the opinion.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement of the FOI Act.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Elizabeth Hamilton and The Hartford Courant
373 East Main Street
Middletown, CT 06457
First Selectman
Town of Middlefield
c/o Matthew J.
Willis, Esq.
Branse &
Willis, LLC
41-C New London
Turnpike
Glastonbury, CT
06033
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-299/FD/paj/02/20/2001