FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Matthew Preston and Bridgeport Downtown Preservation Task Force,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-660
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Works; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Works,
		Respondents	June 27, 2001

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 16, 2001, at which time the complainants 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 November 2, 2000 to the respondent commissioner, the complainants requested copies of “all written and/or electronic communications, and records of communications, by and with the Department of Public Works, which took place after January 1, 2000, and that concern the requirements or design for the proposed courthouse or its site, the acquisition of a site, the timing or financing for the project.”

 

      3.      By letter dated November 3, 2000, the respondents responded to the complainants indicating that their request was being processed.

 

      4.      By letter dated November 16, 2000, the respondent provided the complainants with a copy of an advertisement published by the respondent department seeking a site for the new courthouse and informed the complainants that the respondents could not disclose documents related to the real estate negotiations until the purchase agreement was approved.

 

      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 are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

      8.      It is found that, at the time of the complainants’ request, the respondent department and the City of Bridgeport were engaged in contract negotiations for the purchase of a site for a new criminal courthouse building in the City of Bridgeport.

 

      9.      At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that negotiations were still in progress and that disclosure of the requested records would jeopardize such negotiations. The respondents argued that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(1) and (7), G.S., and asked the Commission to take administrative notice of its decisions in docket #s FIC 1995-292, FIC 1998-204, and FIC 1999-570.  The respondents also maintained that, while the complainants were denied access to the requested records by the respondents, they are not precluded from obtaining the requested records from other agencies which may maintain the same records.  Finally, the respondents represented that the complainants will be provided with access to the purchase agreement once negotiations have concluded. 

 

      10.  The complainants maintain that some records exist pertaining to the proposed courthouse and its construction that are not part of the negotiation process and that the respondents should have provided access to those records.

 

      11.  Section 1-210(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:

 

(1)   preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure . . .

and

 

                    (7) the contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by an agency relative to the acquisition of property or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions have been terminated or abandoned, provided the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this provision . . . .

 

      12.    It is found that the respondents alleged, in broad conclusory terms, that the requested records are exempt under §§1-210(b)(1) and (7), G.S., and made no attempt to describe even generally the contents of the records.

 

      13.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its decisions in docket #s FIC 1995-292, FIC 1998-204, and FIC 1999-570, wherein the Commission construed the exemptions claimed by the respondents in this matter.

 

      14.  It is found, however, that the final decisions in docket #s FIC 1995-292, FIC 1998-204, and FIC 1999-570 do not have any bearing on whether the particular records in this case are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(1) or (7), G.S.

 

      15.  It is found that the respondents failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to either §§1-210(b)(1) or (7), G.S. 

 

      16.  It is concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainants with access to inspect and to receive copies of the requested records.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

1.      The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainants with access to inspect and with copies of the records described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.

 

            2.      Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(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:

 

Matthew Preston and

Bridgeport Downtown Preservation

Task Force

955 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1214

Bridgeport, CT 06607

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Works; and

State of Connecticut, Department of

Public Works

c/o Lawrence G. Widem, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106-1774

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2000-660/FD/paj/07/02/2001