FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Richard S. Cody, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-611 |
|
|
Inland
Wetlands Commission, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 27, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 20, 2000 and January 4, 2001, at which times the complainant 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 November 9, 2000 and filed on November 13, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his records requests on five separate occasions. The complainant requested that this Commission set aside both “the decision to open the public hearing” held by the respondent at its November 9, 2000 meeting and “the policy of the Town of North Stonington which prohibits the Planning & Zoning Secretary from providing citizens access to files immediately within . . . grasp and reach.”
3. 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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . 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. Each agency shall keep and maintain public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located . . . .
4. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
5. It is found that on November 3, 2000, in preparation to participate in the respondent’s November 9, 2000 public hearing, Attorney Ana Navarro, from the complainant’s office, inspected records concerning a certain wetlands application that would be considered by the respondent during the public hearing at the office of the North Stonington town clerk.
6. It is found that after Attorney Navarro inquired about certain records she believed to be missing from the file maintained by the town clerk, the town clerk told her that the complete file was maintained by the respondent in its office (hereinafter “the file”).
7. It is found that the town clerk further informed Attorney Navarro that because the respondent’s administrative assistant was in “transition” from one job position to another, the respondent did not have regular office hours and recommended that Attorney Navarro inspect the file at the respondent’s office on the following Monday.
8. It is found that on the afternoon of Monday, November 6, 2000, Attorney Navarro visited the respondent’s office at which time an unidentified person from another office provided her with copies of records she requested earlier that day by telephone; however, there was no one in the respondent’s office to provide her with access to inspect the file.
9. It is found that on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, Attorney Navarro returned to the respondent’s office to inspect the file but was told that the office was closed and official business could not be conducted because the town hall, in which the respondent commission’s office is located, was being used that day as a polling place for the election.
10. It is found that on Wednesday, November 8, 2000, Attorney Navarro returned to the respondent’s office again and spoke with Ms. Carol Caron, the administrative assistant for the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission which office is located in the same room as the respondent’s office.
11. It is found that, pursuant to the policy of the town of North Stonington, employees of one agency are not permitted to obtain and disclose records of another agency when such employees are not available or absent. Therefore, Ms. Caron informed Attorney Navarro that she could not provide access to inspect the file and that Attorney Navarro would have to make her request directly to the respondent’s administrative assistant, Ms. Holiday.
12. It is found that on the afternoon of November 8, 2000, Attorney Navarro left a voice mail message for Ms. Holiday, requesting access to inspect the file and a specific time and date when she could do so.
13. It is found that on November 9, 2000 the complainant received, via fax, some of the records Attorney Navarro wanted to inspect in the file; however, Attorney Navarro was not able to inspect the file on that date because, as she was informed by Ms. Holiday in the telephone conversation they had that morning, Ms. Holiday would not be in the office much longer that day.
14. It is found that Attorney Navarro was provided access to inspect the file on or about December 5, 2000, nearly one month after the November 9, 2000 public hearing.
15. It is found that, during the period between November 3 and November 9, 2000, the respondent failed to maintain regular office or business hours as required by §1-210(a), G.S., and failed, in the alternative, to maintain the entire file in an accessible place.
16. It is also found that the respondent failed to provide the complainant, through Attorney Navarro, with prompt access to inspect the file as required by §1-210(a), G.S.
17. It is concluded therefore that the respondent violated the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.
18. The complainant’s requests that the Commission set aside the respondent’s decision to open the public hearing is hereby denied. With respect to the complainant’s other request for relief, the Commission lacks jurisdiction in this complaint over the town of North Stonington and the North Stonington Planning and Zoning Commission. Therefore, the complainant’s request for relief with respect thereto is also denied.
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 provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 27, 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:
Richard S. Cody
21 East Main street
PO Box 425
Mystic, CT 06355
Inland Wetlands Commission,
Town of North Stonington
c/o Frank Eppinger, Esq.
O'Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, P.C.
475 Bridge Street, PO Drawer 929
Groton, CT 06340 and
L. J. Arnold, III, Esq.
O'Brien, Shafner, Stuart, Kelly & Morris, P.C.
138 Main Street, PO Box 310
Norwich, CT 06360
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-611/FD/paj/06/28/2001