FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
John Francis, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-432 | |
|
Town Attorney, Town of
Stratford; and |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
January 9, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 11, 2001, at
which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on September 14, 2001, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to his requests for certain records, as described more fully in paragraph 3, below, and thereby denying him a copy of such records.
3. It is found that on September 6, 2001, the complainant hand-delivered two letters of request - one to the office of the respondent town attorney and the other to the office of the respondent councilman. The letter to the respondent town attorney asked that the complainant be provided with a copy of the following records:
i) all information regarding the amendment to [town of] Stratford zoning map dated 8/16/94 regarding Beaver Dam/ Roosevelt Forrest area, including, copy of the original advertisements placed with the Connecticut Post that substantiates the office of the town attorney’s statement to the Stratford zoning commission on 7/9/01 that the Connecticut Post was in error, regarding the advertisement of this matter; and
ii) all correspondence regarding the complainant’s redistricting from the 10th district to the 9th district (“redistricting”), including, copy of any inquiry or complaint to the respondent town attorney’s office by the respondent councilman and any other information in the town attorney’s possession that resulted in the redistricting.
The letter
to the respondent councilman asked that the complainant be provided with a
copy of the following records:
iii) any and all correspondence, inquiry or complaints by the respondent councilman to the office of the respondent town attorney which resulted in the redistricting;
iv) all of the respondent councilman’s 1999 campaign financial records; and
v) a list of all committees the respondent councilman presently serves on.
4. It is found that both the respondent town attorney and the respondent councilman sent written responses to the complainant. The responses were dated and mailed on September 13, 2001.
5. The respondents contend that the complainant was not “denied” records and therefore, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
6. Section 1-206(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records
provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such
right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public
record, in writing, within four business days of such request ….
Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public
record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a
denial. [Emphasis added.]
7. Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., further provides:
Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 … may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.
8. It is found that the respondents failed to comply with the complainant’s requests within four business days of such requests and therefore, pursuant to §1-206(a), G.S., such failure was “deemed a denial”. It is also found that the complainant did not receive a response from the respondents within four business days of his requests, and consequently he filed his appeal on September 14, 2001. It is therefore concluded that this Commission has jurisdiction to hear the complainant’s appeal pursuant to §1-206, G.S.
9. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
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 or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
10. It is found that all of the records that are responsive to the complainant’s requests have been made available to the complainant, and the complainant acknowledged at the hearing in this matter that he had access to such records within a day or so of the respondents’ September 13, 2001 responses. It is concluded that the records that have been made available to the complainant are “public records” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
11. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant’s primary concern was that his property was redistricted from the 10th to the 9th district and he believes the town is engaging in “selective redistricting” and that he is being singled out and treated differently. This Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to the complainant’s records requests and to determining whether the respondents provided the complainant with the requested records. This Commission has no authority to address the complainant’s allegation of “selective redistricting”, and the complainant should raise his concerns in the forum that has the authority to address them.
12. With respect to the respondents’ September 13, 2001 responses, it is found that the tragic World Trade Center events of September 11, 2001, occurred during the period that the complainant’s requests were being processed. In light of all of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondents provided the complainant with the records they had “promptly”, within the meaning of §1-210, G.S., and therefore, the respondents did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the complainant’s records requests of September 6, 2001.
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 January 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:
Town Attorney, Town of Stratford;
and Councilman, 10th District,
Town of Stratford
c/o Kevin C. Kelly, Esq.
Zeldes, Needle & Cooper
1000 Lafayette Boulevard
PO Box 1740
Bridgeport, CT 06601-1740
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-432/FD/paj/1/11/2002