FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Raymond Lafferty, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-325 |
|
|
Zoning Enforcement Officer, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 14, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 5, 2000, at which time the complainant 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 respondent officer is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S.
2. It is found that, by letter dated May 31, 2000, counsel for the complainant requested on the complainant’s behalf that the respondent officer provide him with copies of the entire file dealing with a cease and desist order dated 4/25/000, attaching such order to said request [hereinafter “requested records”].
3. By letter dated June 27, 2000, and filed with the Commission on June 28, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the requested records.
4. Section 1-210(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, 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….
5. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[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, by letter dated June 30, 2000, counsel for the respondent officer informed the complainant’s counsel that the only record in the respondent officer’s file was the cease and desist order already in the possession of the complainant. It is found that a copy of such order was not enclosed with such letter.
7. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent officer should have other requested records. The Commission takes administrative notice of the ordinances of the Town of Beacon Falls, sections 72.8, 9, 10, and 11, which set forth procedures to be followed by the respondent officer and mandate that he keep records of all fees, applications, certificates, complaints and inspections. It is found, however, that the respondent officer does not keep on file or maintain any requested records other than the cease and desist order.
8. The complainant further contended that the response described in paragraph 6, above, was not prompt within the meaning of the FOI Act. It is concluded that such response, written one month after the request described in paragraph 2, above, was not prompt with the meaning of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a) G.S., and that, therefore, the respondent officer violated such provisions.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent officer shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
2. The respondent officer is advised that prompt communication with a records requester and a helpful attitude can often resolve records disputes and result in avoiding the need for costly and time-consuming administrative hearings at the Commission.
3. The complaint against the respondent town is hereby dismissed.
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:
Raymond Lafferty
c/o Serge G. Mihaly, Esq.
Mihaly & Kascak
925 White Plains Road
Trumbull, CT 06611
Zoning Enforcement
Officer
Town of Beacon
Falls; and
Town of Beacon
Falls
c/o Laura M.
Mooney, Esq.
203 Church Street
Naugatuck, CT 06770
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-325/FD/paj/02/20/2001