FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Susan G. Kniep, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-113 | ||
|
Timothy D. Larson, Mayor, Town of East Hartford; and Mary Martin, Grants Administrator, Grants Administration Department, Town of East Hartford, |
|||
| Respondents | September 25, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 30, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By e-mail dated March 14, 2002 and filed on March 15, 2002, and by e-mail dated and filed on March 15, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her access to inspect certain files maintained by the Grants Administration Department of the city of East Hartford and for the removal of public records from the town hall. The complainant requested that this Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents.
3. 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, 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 . . . 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.
and that:
Each such 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 or of the Secretary of the State, as the case may be.
4. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
5. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent mayor denied her access to inspect a file, it is found that on March 13, 2002, the complainant appeared at the respondent mayor’s office and requested from the respondent mayor’s secretary access to inspect the file pertaining to the Yanner property (hereinafter “the file”).
6. It is found that the file was in the respondent mayor’s office, on his desk in plain view, and that the respondent mayor’s secretary informed the complainant that she was not permitted to take files from the respondent mayor’s desk without authorization.
7. It is found that the respondent mayor’s secretary interrupted a meeting of the respondent mayor to obtain authorization from him to remove the file from his desk and provide access to the complainant to inspect it.
8. It is found that the respondent mayor informed his secretary, who then informed the complainant, that he had not completed his review of the file and that the complainant could not have access to the file at that time.
9. It is found that on March 14, 2002, someone from the respondent mayor’s office telephoned the complainant to inform her that the file had been returned to the grants administration department’s office and should be available for her inspection at that office.
10. It is found that the complainant inspected the file on March 14, 2002 and obtained nine copies of records at her request.
11. The Commission takes administrative notice that it has previously opined that the word “promptly” in §1-210, G.S., means “quickly and without undue delay, taking into account all of the factors presented by a particular request . . . [including] the volume of statements requested; the amount of personnel time necessary to comply with the request; the time by which the requester needs the information; the time constraints under which the agency must complete its other work; the importance of the records to the requester, if ascertainable; and the importance to the public of completing the other agency business without loss of the personnel time involved in complying with the request.” See FOI Commission Advisory Opinion #51, January 11, 1982.
12. It is found that the respondent mayor was not actually viewing the file at the time of the complainant’s request and there would not have been a loss of personnel time in complying with the complainant’s request, nor would complying with her request have conflicted with any time constraints under which the respondent mayor had to complete any other work.
13. It is found that the respondent mayor had no legitimate reason to delay the complainant’s inspection of the file and therefore unduly delayed the complainant’s access to inspect the file.
14. It is found, under the facts and circumstances that the respondent mayor’s provision of access to the file was not “prompt” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., and it is therefore concluded that the respondent mayor violated the terms of such provision in this case.
15. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent grants administrator improperly removed files from town hall, it is found that on March 15, 2002, the complainant appeared at the grants administration department’s office to inspect the file again and was told that the file was not in the office because it was in the possession of the respondent grants administrator and that she was not in the office.
16. It is found that on March 15, 2002, the respondent grants administrator took the file out of the office to review it, to ensure that all records were still in the file and in their proper order, while she was at the hospital with a family member.
17. It is found that as soon as the respondent grants administrator was informed that the complainant wanted to inspect the file, it was immediately returned to the office by another family member.
18. It is found that the file was only out of the office for a few hours.
19. Because the complainant obtained access to the file in question within a few hours of her request, the Commission declines, as unnecessary, to address the issue of whether that file was kept and maintained in an accessible place within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
20. The Commission, in its discretion, declines to impose civil penalties against the respondents as requested by the complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 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:
Timothy D. Larson, Mayor,
Town of East Hartford; and
Mary Martin, Grants Administrator,
Grants Administration Department,
Town of East Hartford
c/o Janis M. Small, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
740 Main Street
East Hartford, CT 06108
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-113/FD/paj/9/27/2002