FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 18, 2006, at which time the complainants 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 and filed on October 17, 2005, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent failed to comply with this Commission’s order in Docket #FIC 2004-569, Misty Williams v. James Finch, Finance Director, Town of Branford (hereinafter “FIC 2004-569”).

 

3.      The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in FIC 2004-569, which decision ordered the respondent to:

 

“forthwith provide the complainants with a certified copy of the requested records described in paragraph 2, above, free of charge.”

 

The Commission also takes administrative notice of paragraph 2 of the findings of  FIC 2004-569 which described the requested records as:

 

“the town’s record that contains the list(s) of addresses that was attached to the corresponding invoices(s)/bill(s) and check request form(s) that was back-up documentation identifying the ten addresses for the inspections that underlie the issuance of payment by the Town of Branford to Michael Milici in the amount of $1,650.00 (hereinafter the requested records).”

 

4.      It is found, and the record in FIC 2004-569 reflects, that the complainant had obtained a copy of the requested records but had not received a certified copy of those records.

 

5.      It is found, and the record in FIC 2004-569 reflects, that, during the hearing in FIC 2004-569, the parties reached an agreement the conditions of which were that if the respondent provided the complainants with another copy of the requested records and included a certification that characterized the records as they desired, then the complainants would withdraw their complaint.  However, if the complainants found anything unsatisfactory with the records provided they would not withdraw the complaint and they were to inform the hearing officer and a recommended decision on the merits of the complaint would be issued.

 

6.      It is found, that by letter dated May 31, 2005, the respondent provided the complainants with a certified copy of the requested records, which certification stated that the records were “a true and actual copy of a list of addresses dated April 4, 2003 submitted to Michael Milici for inspection.”

 

7.      It is found that the language of the certification described in paragraph 6, above, was not the characterization the complainants desired.

 

8.      It is found, and the record in FIC 2004-569 reflects, that by letter dated June 6, 2005, to the hearing officer, the complainants informed the hearing officer that the complaint in FIC 2004-569 would not be withdrawn.

 

9.      It is found that, consequently, the Commission issued a final decision on the merits of the complaint in FIC 2004-569.

 

10.   It is found, therefore, that the issue in this appeal is limited to whether the respondent has complied with the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-569, as described in paragraph 3, above, and not whether the respondent complied with the conditions of the proposed settlement agreement, which never materialized.

 

11.   At the hearing in this matter, the complainants explained that their complaint in this appeal is specifically that the respondent did not certify the records in the manner                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       agreed to at the hearing in FIC 2004-569, because the certification did not include the characterizations of the records that they desired.

 

12.   It is found, however, that the Commission did not order the respondent to use any specific language in its certification or that the certification include any particular facts about the character or origin of the records or their relationship to any other records.

 

13.   It is found that even though the respondent’s May 31, 2005 provision of the requested records to the complainants, as described in paragraph 6, above, occurred before the Commission issued its order in FIC 2004-569, such provision satisfies the order in that case.   

 

14.   Consequently, based upon the facts and circumstances in this case and FIC 2004-569, it is found that it would not be in the interest of justice to conclude that the respondent failed to comply with the order in FIC 2004-569 because he failed to again provide the complainants with another copy of the record described in paragraph 6, above.  The Commission believes that such a technical reading of the order in FIC 2004-569 would lead to an unfair and unreasonable result in this case.

 

On the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order is recommended by the Commission. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 26, 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:

 

Misty Williams and Dawn Massey

225 Stony Creek Road

Branford, CT 06405

 

James Finch, Finance Director,

Town of Branford

c/o Elizabeth P. Gilson, Esq.

383 Orange Street

New Haven, CT 06511

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-499FD/paj/4/27/2006