FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 2, 2005, 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.      It is found that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that, by letter dated April 11, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of:

 

a.       “any and all letters from the MDC to Mr. Meehan or the Town of Canton authorizing the use of emergency vehicles;

 

b.      any and all letters from the police chief and fire chief regarding their opinions on the issue of emergency access to the development.”

 

3.      It is found that, by letter dated April 15, 2005, the respondent provided the complainant with records responsive to his request.

 

4.      By letter dated April 27, 2005 and filed on April 29, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide him with a copy of “a letter from the Metropolitan District Commission to developer Paul Meehan which was presented to the respondent in early to mid year of 2004” (hereinafter “the letter”).

 

5.      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 . . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  [Emphasis add].

 

6.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.” 

 

7.      It is found that after the respondent provided the records on April 15, 2005, it received more records that were responsive to the complainant’s request and provided those records on May 26, 2005.

 

8.      It is found that, as of the date of receipt of the complainant’s April 11, 2005, request the respondent did not maintain the letter described in paragraph 4, above.  It is also found that the respondent is not aware of the letter.

 

9.      It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainant.

 

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 special meeting of October 11, 2005.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Thomas J. Sevigny

131 Gracey Road

Canton, CT 06019

 

Land Use Office, Town of Canton

c/o Matthew Ranelli, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One Constitution Plaza

Hartford, CT 06103-1919

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-189FD/paj/10/13/2005