FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Dorienne Truskoff, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-451 |
|
|
Town
Clerk, Town of Chaplin; |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 13, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 11, 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated August 1, 2000 to the respondent town clerk, the complainant requested “copies of all legal notices published regarding hearings on the Application for Special Permit from SBA, Inc/Nextel Communications (Wireless Telecommunication Facility)” and for copies of the “posted meeting agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held after the Public Hearing on July 13, 2000 for the purpose of placing a 175 foot monopole on the site referred to as 10125-056/North Chaplin at 203 Davis Road Chaplin, CT.”
3. By letter dated August 1, 2000 to the respondent first selectman, the complainant also requested copies of “any communications (letters, memos, phone messages, reports, notes from reports provided verbally, meetings, videos, audio tapes, materials, notes from phone calls, emails, faxes, telexes, charts, research findings, etc.) Chaplin has received from SBA/Nextel or any of their agents regarding any proposals for telecommunication towers for Chaplin and the region” and for “any communications, (letters, memos, phone messages, reports, notes from verbal reports, meetings, videos, audio tapes, materials, notes from phone calls, emails, faxes, telexes, charts, research findings, etc.) Chaplin has had with regional (other towns in our region) Land Use authorities, (i.e., Town Planner, Town Planners, Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Town Manager, Town Managers, Zoning Enforcement Officers, and attorneys working for the Town and region).”
4. By letter dated August 5, 2000 and filed on August 14, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with her requests.
5. 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.
6. 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 . . . .”
7. It is found that the requested records, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8. The complainant contends that while she received some records responsive to her request she believes that all responsive records were not provided and that the respondents failed to promptly comply with her request by giving her the “royal run around” when they told her to request the notices she sought from the local newspaper.
9. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondents failed to provide her with all records responsive to her request, it is found that the respondents conducted a search of their files, compiled all responsive records they maintained, and provided such records to the complainant on August 7, 2000.
10. It is found that on or about August 14, 2000 the respondents received a record from another town by fax that was responsive to the complainant’s request and sent such record to the complainant by fax on that date.
11. It is found that the respondents maintain no other records responsive to the complainant’s requests. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a), and1-212(a), G.S.
12. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondents failed to promptly comply with her request, it is found that the respondents provided the first set of records two business days after receiving her request and the additional record described in paragraph 10, above, on the day they received it.
13. It is found that the respondents recommended that the complainant ask for copies of the legal notices from the local newspaper in an effort to assist the complainant, because the respondents did not maintain such records.
14. It is found that the respondents complied with the complainant’s request “promptly” within the meaning of §1-212(a), G.S., and it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act in this case.
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 June 13, 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:
Dorienne Truskoff
243 Atwoodville Road
Mansfield, CT 06250
Town
Clerk, Town of Chaplin; and
First
Selectman, Town of Chaplin
c/o
John D. Boland, Esq.
Boland,
St. Onge & Brouillard
PO
Box 550
Putnam,
CT 06260-0550
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-451/FD/paj/06/15/2001