FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-384 | |
|
Chief, Police
Department, Town |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
November 14, 2001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 19, 2001, at
which time the complainants appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. The
respondents failed to appear at the hearing, although this Commission’s
return receipt records reflect that the Notice of Hearing and Order to Show
Cause in this matter were signed as “received” by the respondents, and
such signed return receipt was returned to this Commission’s office on
August 31, 2001.
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 of complaint dated August 10, 2001 and filed with the Commission on August 14, 2001, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:
a) denying them access to the audiotape recordings (“audiotapes”) of the respondent commission’s meetings for the months of February, March and July 2001;
b) keeping the respondent commission’s meeting tapes in the respondent chief’s personal secretary’s office rather than at the Naugatuck Town Hall; and
c) posting and making available only at the Naugatuck Town Hall the respondent commission’s regular meeting agendas, rather than making them available in a public and secure place at the Naugatuck Police Department.
3. With respect to the allegation concerning the audiotapes, as described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that by certified letters dated July 25, 2001, the complainants requested that the respondents provide them with access to listen, and if needed, a copy of the audiotapes of the respondent commission’s meetings for the months of February, March and July 2001.
4. It is found that the respondents failed to respond to the requests for the audiotapes, and further, that as of the date of the hearing in this matter the respondents have not provided the complainants with access to the audiotapes.
5. Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:
Public records or files means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
6. Section 1-210(a), G.S., further provides, in relevant part:
Except 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. 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. [Emphasis added.]
7. It is found that the respondent commission makes audiotape recordings of its meetings, and such audiotape recordings are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.
8. It is found that the complainants are entitled to listen to, and receive a copy of the requested audiotapes during “regular office or business hours” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
9. It is concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G. S., when they failed to promptly provide the complainants with access to the requested audiotapes.
10. With respect to the allegation concerning where the audiotapes are kept, as described in paragraph 2b, above, §1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Each [public]… agency shall keep and maintain all 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….
11. It is found that the respondent commission typically holds its regular meetings, and receives mail, at the Naugatuck Police Department. It is also found that the respondent commission failed to provide any evidence to establish that any other location but the Naugatuck Police Department is its “regular office or place of business”, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., or that it has no office or place of business, in which event, its “public records” are to be kept “in an accessible place” at the Naugatuck town clerk’s office.
12. It is concluded that for purposes of the general public gaining access to the respondent commission’s “public records”, which include the audiotapes, the Naugatuck Police Department is the “regular office or place of business” of the respondent commission, and therefore, the audiotapes should be available at the Naugatuck Police Department.
13. The complainants contend that presently the audiotapes of the respondent commission’s meetings are “not kept at Town Hall, but rather [in] the chief’s personal secretary’s office.”
14. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by keeping the audiotapes in the chief’s personal secretary’s office. However, to the extent that such audiotapes cannot be accessed “promptly” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., then such inaccessibility violates the FOI Act.
15. With respect to the allegation concerning where the respondent commission’s meeting agendas are kept and made available, as described in paragraph 2c, above, §§1-225(c) and 1-225(d), G.S., provide, in relevant part:
(c) The agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency … shall be available to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer, in such agency's regular office or place of business or, if there is no such office or place of business… in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state ….[Emphasis added.]
(d) Notice of each special meeting of every public agency … shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the office of the …clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state … The … clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office. [Emphasis added.]
16. It is found that the respondent commission’s regular meeting agendas are “filed” and made available to the public at the Naugatuck town clerk’s office, and that such office has regular business hours between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. It is concluded that while such availability at the town clerk’s office is laudable, §1-225(c), G.S., requires the filing of “regular” meeting agendas in the respondent commission’s “regular office or place of business”, and if the respondent commission does not have an office or place of business, then the regular meeting agendas are required to be filed and made available at the Naugatuck town clerk’s office. For clarification purposes, it is noted that §1-225(d), G.S., requires the filing of “special” meeting notices in the town clerk’s office and further that the town clerk post such special meeting notices.
17. It is concluded that the respondent commission violated §1-225(c), G.S., by failing to make its regular meeting agendas available at its regular office and place of business, the Naugatuck Police Department.
18. Regarding the complainants’ contention that agendas should be filed and available in a public location within the Naugatuck Police Department so that employees who work off-shifts and nights can easily access such agendas, it is concluded that such filing in a public location would certainly be in keeping with the spirit of the FOI Act.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainants with access to the audiotapes, as described more fully in paragraph 2a of the findings, above.
2. Forthwith, the respondent commission shall file and make available at the Naugatuck Police Department, its regular meeting agendas.
3. This commission shall convene a further hearing pursuant to §1-206 (b)(2), G.S., limited to providing the respondents an opportunity to show cause why a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars ought not to be imposed upon them for their failure to promptly provide the complainants with the audiotapes.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 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:
Chief, Police Department,
Town of Naugatuck
211 Spring Street
Naugatuck, CT 06770
Police Commission,
Town of Naugatuck
211 Spring Street
Naugatuck, CT 06770
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-384/FD/paj/11/16/2001