FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Larry Lamphere, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-157 | ||
| Respondents | October 9, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 9, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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, by letter dated March 23, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of “documentation for the past ten years (from 1992-2002) of any real property open space donations made to the town of Groton by Mr. Anthony Marshall or Mr. James Andruskiewicz or any other contractors performing construction in Groton. Please include a description of the open space donated property and when the property was transferred.”
3. It is found that, by letter dated March 28, 2002, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of a plan showing the Andruskiewicz resubdivision dated October 1994, and informed the complainant that, although such plan does not show a proposed conservation easement in favor of the town, it does show a pedestrian easement and a drainage easement in favor of the town. It is further found that, by such letter, the respondent informed the complainant that he had found no records reflecting an open space donation made to the town by Mr. Marshall and, further, that he had not undertaken a comprehensive review of town records to determine what open space donations contractors might have made to the town. It is further found that, by such letter, the respondent informed the complainant that the town occasionally accepts open space donations as part of subdivision approvals, but that such space is dedicated by the land owner or developer, rather than contractors building roads, homes and other improvements.
4. By letter dated April 5, 2002, and filed on April 9, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him all requested records.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[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 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:
[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.
7. It is found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain a specific record of open space donations made to the town, nor does the respondent maintain records by property owner name; rather, the respondent maintains records organized by property parcels. It is found that the individuals named in the request described in paragraph 2, above, are abutting neighbors of the complainant.
8. It is also found that contractors do not generally donate open space to the town of Groton, since they are infrequently property owners or developers.
9. It is further found that the most efficient and accurate method of finding open space donations made to the town is to research the land record cards maintained by the Groton Town Clerk.
10. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent failed to provide him with Mr. Marshall’s A2 survey, which would indicate any open space donation made by that individual and, further, that private ecological or conservancy organizations might have better records concerning open space donations made to the town. However, it is found that, as of the hearing in this matter, Mr. Marshall had not filed an A2 survey with the respondent. It is also found that the respondent is not obligated to research other town agencies or outside organizations to comply with a request for public records.
11. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.
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 October 9, 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:
Larry Lamphere
183 Oslo Street
Mystic, CT 06355
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-157/FD/paj/10/15/2002