FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Allen Bacchiochi, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-010 | ||
| First Selectman, Town of Stafford, | |||
| Respondent | August 14, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 26, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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. It is found that on December 19, 2001 the complainant made an oral request to the secretary of the respondent first selectman, Ms. Corbett, for a copy of the list of all town ordinances.
3. It is found that although Ms. Corbett informed the complainant that the official copy of the town ordinances was located in the town clerk’s office, she also told the complainant that she would make a copy of the ordinances for him.
4. It is found that, at the time the complainant made his request, Ms. Corbett did not request that he put his request for a copy of the ordinances in writing.
5. It is found that on December 26th and on December 28th, 2001, the complainant inquired about his request for the town ordinances and was informed by Ms. Corbett that she had not yet made a copy for him.
6. By letter dated and filed on January 8, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to promptly comply with his request.
7. 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.
8. 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 . . . .”
9. It is found that the requested record is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. It is found that Ms. Corbett informed the complainant by telephone that she had made a copy of the ordinances and placed it in the complainant’s mailbox located in the respondent’s office on or about January 2, 2002.
11. It is found that the complainant did not recall Ms. Corbett’s telephone call until she mentioned it at the hearing on this matter.
12. It is also found that the complainant was issued the mailbox in the respondent’s office just prior to Ms. Corbett’s telephone call described in paragraph 10, above, and that he was not accustomed to receiving records or any other correspondence via his mailbox. Consequently, the complainant never checked his mailbox between December 28 and January 8, 2002. Therefore, the complainant did not receive a copy of the requested records until sometime after he filed his January 8, 2002 complaint.
13. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent argued that the complainant’s allegations do not constitute a violation of the FOI Act because:
a. the respondent does not maintain a document entitled “List of Town Ordinances;
b. the town ordinances are kept in accessible places throughout the town including the respondent’s office;
c. the complainant was not denied access to inspect the town ordinances and made no attempt at inspection;
d. the complainant failed to put his request in writing; and
e. the respondent complied promptly with the complainant’s request given the fact that he made his request close to the Christmas and New Year’s holidays.
14. With respect to the respondent’s argument described in paragraph 13a, above, it is found that while the respondent does not maintain a document entitled a “List of Town Ordinances” it is clear that Ms. Corbett understood that the complainant was requesting a copy of all of the town ordinances which is maintained by the respondent and indicated that she would make a copy of them for him.
15. With respect to the respondent’s argument described in paragraph 13b, above, it is found that the respondent is not excused from his obligation under §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., to promptly comply with a records request because the same or similar records may also be maintained in another office.
16. With respect to the respondent’s argument described in paragraph 13c, above, it is found that the complainant’s request was not to inspect the town ordinances but to obtain a copy of them.
17. It is further found that the complainant’s right to obtain, and the respondent’s obligation to provide a copy of, the requested records under §1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., is not negated simply because the complainant could have also exercised his right to inspect such records.
18. With respect to the respondent’s argument described in paragraph 13d, above, it is found that Ms. Corbett never asked the complainant to put his request for a copy of the town ordinances in writing and therefore the respondent waived any right to require that the request described in paragraph 2, above, be reduced to writing.
19. With respect to the respondent’s argument described in paragraph 13e, above, it is found that the complainant made his request close to the holiday season of 2001 and that the respondent’s office was closed on December 24, 25, 31, 2001 and January 1, 2002.
20. It is found however, that there were a number days between December 19 and January 2nd during which Ms. Corbett could have made and provided a copy of the town ordinances to the complainant.
21. Consequently, it is found that the respondent’s provision of the requested record was not “prompt” within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
22. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
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 promptness provisions of §§1-210 and 1-212, G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 14, 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:
First Selectman, Town of Stafford
c/o Edward Muska, Esq.
PO Box 22, Two East Main Street
Stafford Springs, CT 06076
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-010/FD/paj/8/20/2002