FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Cecil C. Young, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2002-415 | |
|
Collin
Vice, Executive Director, Housing Authority, City of Bridgeport, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 26, 2003 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on November 1, 2002, at which time the complainant appeared and presented
testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent did not appear.
The case-caption has been changed to more correctly identify the
respondent in this matter.
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.
By letter dated and
filed on September 12, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission
alleging that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s final
decision in Docket #FIC 2001-488 Cecil C. Young v. Executive Director,
Bridgeport Housing Authority (hereinafter “FIC 2001-488”).
3.
The Commission takes
administrative notice of the record, case file and final decision in FIC
2001-488, which decision ordered the respondent to
“
. . . undertake a diligent search for all requested records described in
paragraphs 2b [records regarding payments of the funeral of the father of Mr.
Craig] and 2d [any record regarding a $300,000.00 fine issued by HUD against
the Bridgeport Housing Authority] of the findings, above, among all of the
Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport’s records maintained by him. If the requested records are located, the respondent shall
forthwith provide a copy of such records to the complainant, free of charge.
If no responsive records are found, the respondent shall provide the
complainant with an affidavit detailing the scope, duration, and results of
the search for such records.”
4.
It is found that by
letter dated September 30, 2002, the respondent informed the complainant that
“the authority does not pay for funeral services and have no records
concerning this private matter of a former employee” and that “the
Authority has received no written notification from HUD fining [the Authority]
$300,000.00.”
5.
At the hearing on
this matter the complainant claimed that from past personal experience he
knows that the housing authority has allowed employees to attend funerals
during working hours and that the housing authority has paid for their
transportation. The complainant
further claimed that based on his personal experience and other reliable
sources, he believes that the housing authority allowed employees to attend
the funeral service of Mr. Craig and that the housing authority paid for the
limousine service used to get them there.
The complainant further believes, therefore, that there should be a
purchase order, or a returned check that reflects payment for the limousine
service. The complainant further
claimed that the respondent’s September 30, 2002 letter fails to
specifically address whether or not the housing authority paid for the
limousine and has a record of such payment.
The complainant also indicated that an affidavit attesting to the fact
that no such record exists, as ordered by the Commission in FIC 2001-488,
would have satisfied him but was not provided.
6.
It is found that the
respondent’s September 30, 2002 letter was crafted to respond very
specifically and directly to the exact wording of the complainant’s request.
7.
It
is found however that it is clear from the record in FIC 2001-488 that the
complainant’s request was broader than its actually wording and was for any
records maintained by the respondent or the housing authority related to the
funeral of Mr. Craig including any payments made for the transportation of
employees who attended the funeral.
8.
It is found that the
respondent’s September 30, 2002 letter is a blatant attempt to circumvent
the clear intention of this Commission’s order and constitutes
non-compliance with the complainant’s request and such order.
9.
It is also found that
the respondent failed to provide the complainant with an affidavit detailing
the scope and duration, and results of the search for the requested records.
10.
It is found that the
respondent’s failure to fully comply with the complainant’s records
request and this Commission’s order is without reasonable grounds.
The following order
by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning
the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall fully comply with the Commission’s order in FIC 2001-488 by undertaking a diligent search among all of the Housing Authority of the City of Bridgeport’s records for any records related to the funeral of Mr. Craig including any payments made for the transportation of employees who attended that funeral. If the requested records are located, the respondent shall forthwith provide a copy of such records to the complainant, free of charge. If no responsive records are found, the respondent shall provide the complainant with an affidavit detailing the scope, duration, and results of the search for such records. Failure to comply with this order within seven days of the date of the notice of final decision in this case shall result in the referral of this matter to the appropriate state’s attorney for criminal prosecution under §1-240(b), G.S.
2. The respondent Collin Vice shall remit to this Commission, within thirty days of the date of the notice of the final decision in this case, a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00).
3. Finally, the Commission admonishes the respondent for her utter lack of accountability, care, concern and diligence in complying with the Freedom of Information Act and the Commission’s order in FIC 2001-488. By failing to take seriously the Commission’s order in FIC 2001-488, the respondents have continued to unnecessarily burden this Commission, the tax payers of this state and the City of Bridgeport.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 2003.
_______________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
Cecil
C. Young
99
Carroll Avenue
Bridgeport,
CT 06607
Collin
Vice, Executive Director, Housing
Authority,
City of Bridgeport
________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission