FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Alan Small, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-494 | |
|
Diane Fox, Town Planner, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Greenwich; and Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Greenwich, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
April 24, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 31, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2001-472, Alan Small v. Diane Fox, Town Planner, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Greenwich; and Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Greenwich and Docket #FIC 2001-480, Alan Small v. Diane Fox, Town Planner, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Greenwich; and Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Greenwich (hereinafter “Docket #FIC 2001-472” and “Docket #FIC 2001-480”, respectively).
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 October 18, 2001, the complainant requested from the respondent planning and zoning commission (hereinafter “PZC”) access to review essentially the same documents requested in connection with the complainant’s complaint in Docket #FIC 2001-472. In Docket #FIC 2001-472 the complainant requested access to the “actual formula” that was developed by a company known as KVS Systems, Inc. used to calculate floor area ratios (hereinafter “FARs”) while in this case, the complainant requested access to the “actual formula” used to calculate FARs regardless of who developed such formula. In addition, in this case, the complainant requested that if the responsive information existed in a programming language that did not correlate well to the English language, a translation of the language be included or a contact person be assigned to translate it for him and the complainant also requested the resume or qualifications of the person who developed the calculations for FARs.
3. By letter dated October 19, 2001 to the respondent PZC, the complainant also requested access to all records of Marilyn Nichols, or other planning and zoning staff, maintained by the PZC concerning FARs.
4. By letter dated October 26, 2001 and filed October 29, 2001, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his requests, described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above. In addition, the complainant requested that the Commission impose any fines applicable under §1-206(b), G.S.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…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.
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 concluded that to the extent records exist that are responsive to the complainant’s requests described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8. It is found that the respondents did not reply to the complainant’s requests described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, because they had already provided the complainant with all records maintained by them pertaining to the development of the formula and methodology for FARs in Docket #FIC 2001-472 and they had provided the complainant with the only record they maintained of Marilyn Nichols or other staff, in connection with Docket #FIC 2001-480.
9. With respect to the complainant’s October 18, 2001 request concerning the formula and methodology for FARs, described in paragraph 2, it is found that the respondents do not maintain any additional records beyond those addressed in Docket #FIC 2001-472, that would be responsive to such request; since the issues with respect to the formula and methodology for FARs have been fully addressed in Docket #FIC 2001-472, they will not be addressed herein.
10. With respect to the complainant’s October 19, 2001 request for records of Marilyn Nichols and other staff members, described in paragraph 3, above, it is found that other than a record provided to the complainant in connection with Docket #FIC 2001-480, the respondents no longer maintain any of Ms. Nichols’ files, who is no longer an employee of the Town of Greenwich, or any other staff files concerning the FARs calculations. The respondents stated that any such files have likely been purged because they would date back to 1996 through 1998.
11. It is concluded that, given the fact that the requests herein are essentially the same requests that the respondents replied to in Docket #FIC 2001-472 and Docket #FIC 2001-480, and that such replies occurred at essentially the same time that the requests herein were submitted, the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s requests as described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, or to provide him with copies of the same records already provided in response to the requests in Docket #FIC 2001-472 and Docket #FIC 2001-480.
12. Since the Commission concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act in this case, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to consider the imposition of civil penalties.
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 April 24, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Diane Fox, Town Planner, Planning
and Zoning Commission, Town of
Greenwich; and Planning and Zoning
Commission, Town of Greenwich
c/o Haden P. Gerrish, Esq.
Greenwich Town Attorney
Town Hall, 101 Field Point Road
Greenwich. CT 06830
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-494/FD/paj/4/29/2002