FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 6, 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.      The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that by letter dated March 29, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent send him a list of all the Borough of Woodmont bank accounts, which list should include the name and number of each account.  By the same letter, the complainant requested a list of any other savings, investments, or holdings the Borough may have that would total all the cash value on hand belonging to the Borough of Woodmont.

 

3.      It is found that by letter dated April 4, 2005, the respondent provided the complainant with a list of the names of the financial institutions at which the Borough of Woodmont has accounts.

 

4.      It is found that by letter dated April 6, 2005, the complainant indicated that the respondent failed to include the account numbers that correspond to the banks listed in the respondent’s April 4, 2005 letter.

 

5.      It is found that by letter dated April 8, 2005, the respondent again listed the names of the financial institutions at which the Borough of Woodmont has accounts and informed the complainant that the account numbers are confidential and that the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act does not require the disclosure of such numbers.

 

6.      By letter dated April 14, 2005 and filed on April 15, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the “FOI” Act by:

 

a.       not fully complying with his March 29, 2005 request;

 

b.      not promptly complying with that request; and

 

c.       failing to have regular business hours. 

 

7.      With respect to the complainant’s allegations described in paragraph 6a and 6b, above, §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. 

 

8.      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.” 

 

9.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning §1-210(a), G.S.

 

10.   It is found that at the time of the complainant’s request, the respondent maintained neither a list of all Borough of Woodmont bank accounts that includes the name and number of each account, nor a list of any other savings, investments, or holding the Borough of Woodmont may have that would total all the cash value on hand belonging to the Borough.

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that at the time of the complainant’s request, the requested records did not exist and it is concluded that the respondent is not required under the FOI Act to create such records. 

 

12.  It is found, however, that the respondent created the list provided in her April 4^th and 8^th, 2005 letters in response to the complainant’s request in an effort to provide him with some of the information he sought.

 

13.    With respect to the account numbers, it is found that disclosure of such numbers would give persons the potential to access the financial records and funds related to those accounts and such access would be beyond the supervision and control of the respondent.  Therefore, disclosure of the account numbers would jeopardize the security of the funds maintained in those accounts.

 

14.    Consequently, under the limited facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission, as a matter of discretion, declines to order disclosure of the account numbers.

 

15.    It is also found that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent was prompt in her responses to the complainant’s request.

 

16.    It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant in paragraph 6a and 6b, above.

 

17.    With respect to the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 6c, above, §1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that: 

 

Each such agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located . . . .

 

18.    It is found that the respondent does not have regular office hours during which the public may have access to records maintained by her, nor does she keep such records in the office of the town clerk of the city of Milford, which is the political subdivision in which the respondent is located. 

 

19.    It is therefore concluded that the respondent has failed to comply with the requirements of §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to keep the public records she maintains in either an office or place of business, in an accessible place during regular business hours or in the office of the town clerk.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provision of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

2.      In complying with the order in paragraph 1 above, the respondent may choose to either establish and maintain regular business hours which hours may be on any one day for any length of time not less than one hour per week or maintain her records, or a copy thereof, at the Milford town clerks office.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 12, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Stephen Borer

204 Anderson Avenue

Milford, CT 06460

 

Treasurer, Borough of Woodmont

c/o Gerald T. Weiner, Esq. and

Judith Mauzaka, Esq.

PO Box 9177

350 Fairfield Avenue

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-168FD/paj/4/12/2006