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 of Naugatuck; and Police Commission, Town of Naugatuck, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
June 12, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
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. The Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) after a hearing held on September 19, 2001 issued a Final Decision in contested case docket # FIC 2001-384, Rick Smolicz and Connecticut Independent Police Union Local #2 v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Naugatuck; and Police Commission, Town of Naugatuck on November 19, 2001 (hereinafter “November decision in FIC 2001-384”).
3. In finding 3 of the November decision in FIC 2001-384 the Commission found that the complainants requested, by certified letters dated July 25, 2001, 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. In finding 4 of the November decision in FIC 2001-384 the Commission further found that the respondents failed to respond to the request for the audiotapes, and that as of September 19, 2001, the date of the Commission’s hearing in FIC 2001-384, the respondents had not provided the complainants with access to the audiotapes.
5. The Commission concluded in the November decision in FIC 2001-384 that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G. S., when they failed to promptly provide the complainants with access to the requested audiotapes and ordered in paragraph 3 of its order that:
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.
6. Section 1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:
upon the finding that a denial of any right created by the Freedom of Information Act was without reasonable grounds and after the custodian or other official directly responsible for the denial has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against the custodian or other official a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.
7. It is found that on or about October 15, 2001 the respondents responded to the complainant’s July 25, 2001 request for the audiotapes, and on October 15, 2001 informed complainant Smolicz that he could get a copy of the requested audiotapes at a cost of time and a half the hourly wage rate of Lieutenant Bozinski, the officer who would make the copies. Such rate would be between $36 and $41 per hour.
8. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents offered no evidence of reasonable grounds for their failure to provide the complainant with access to listen to or obtain a copy of the audiotapes between late July 2001 and October 15, 2001, the date the respondents offered the complainants a copy of the audiotapes.
9. It is therefore concluded that the respondents’ failure to provide the complainants with access to listen to or obtain a copy of the audiotapes between late July 2001 and October 15, 2001 was “without reasonable grounds” within the meaning of §1-206(b)(2), G.S.
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 remit to this Commission a civil penalty in the amount of $200.00.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 12, 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:
Rick Smolicz and Connecticut
Independent Police Union Local #2
c/o E. Stephen Briggs, Esq.
2 Hickory Hill Way
West Granby, CT 06090
Chief, Police Department, Town
of Naugatuck; and Police Commission,
Town of Naugatuck
c/o Steven A. Ouellette, Esq. and
William J. Ward, Esq.
Ouellette, Deganis, Gallagher & Ward
143 Main street
Cheshire, CT 06410
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-384/FD2/paj/6/14/2002