FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Lyndsey Keene and Lorraine Longmoor, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-457 | |
|
First
Selectman, Town of Barkhamsted; |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
January 9, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on November 8, 2001, at which time the complainants 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. It is found that by letter
dated October 11, 2001, the complainants made a written request to the
respondent first selectman for the legal opinions as of July 27, 2001,
concerning the road construction on Woodland Acres Road (hereinafter “legal
opinions as of July 27, 2001”).
3. It is found that complainant
Keene had previously on September 25, 2001 and October 3rd, 2001
made verbal requests for legal opinions; once, to the respondent First
Selectman, on the steps of town hall, when the First Selectman was on his way
out; again during a Board of Selectmen meeting held on the evening of
September 25, 2001; and on October 3rd, 2001, addressing the
chairman of the respondent commission, during the respondent commission’s
meeting held that night.
4. The complainants appealed to
the Commission by letter dated October 1st, 2001 and filed with the
Commission on October 3rd, 2001, and supplemented by letter dated
October 18, 2001, and filed with the Commission on October 19, 2001, alleging
that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“ACT”) by
denying them access to legal opinions as of July 27, 2001.
5. It is found that by letter
dated October 16, 2001, the respondent first selectman acknowledged receipt of
the complainants’ written request of October 11, 2001, enclosed copies of
written legal opinions having to do with Woodland Acres, and informed the
complainant that “there are no other written legal opinions on file.”
6. 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 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. [Emphasis added.]
7. It is found that the
respondents do not have any legal opinions other than those provided to the
complainants, and described in paragraph 5, above.
The legal opinions provided to the complainants are not what the
complainants are seeking as they predate July 27, 2001.
8. It is concluded that the
respondents do not have any legal opinions that are responsive to the
complainants’ requests.
9. It is therefore concluded that
the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.
10. The complainants contend that
they were unclear as to whether legal opinions other than the ones provided to
them exist, because there is mention in a September 13, 2001 letter to the
complainants from the Zoning Enforcement /Inland Wetland Officer that “[t]he
[Inland Wetlands] Commission is awaiting a legal opinion from the Town’s
attorney” and also mention in the Inland Wetlands commission’s meeting
minutes of August 14, 2001 of the following: “the [Inland Wetlands]
Commission discussed issuing an order to all property owners abutting Woodland
Acres to provide an engineered design for sedimentation and erosion control
and to require its implementation. [The
Zoning Enforcement Officer] Morin suggested that the IWC seek the advice of
the Town attorney to see whether it can legally issue such an order” and “[the
Inland Wetlands commission] would request an opinion from an attorney on the
engineered design” and “[the Inland Wetlands commission] would seek advice
of an attorney on more permanent solutions.”
11. Based on the references to
seeking a legal opinion, described in paragraph 10, above, it is concluded
that it was not unreasonable that the complainants speculated that other legal
opinions might exist. Consequently,
the commission does not find that the complainants brought this complaint
frivolously and in bad faith. However,
what is curious is that even after the complainants’ received the October
16, 2001 response from the respondent first selectman, clearly indicating that
no other legal opinions exist, the complainants still found the need to pursue
this appeal.
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.
2. The Commission recommends that the complainants and the respondents try to utilize the Commission’s ombudsman process as a means of resolving any future differences that may arise and involve FOI issues.
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:
First Selectman, Town of
Barkhamsted; Inland Wetlands
Commission, Town of
Barkhamsted; and Office
of Zoning Enforcement,
Town of Barkhamsted
c/o Andrew C. Glassman, Esq.
Pullman & Comley, LLC
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103-3702
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-457/FD/paj/1/14/2002