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.  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #s FIC 2005-308, Paul Santoro, First Selectman v. Lloyd Anderson, Chairman, Board of Finance, Town of Canterbury; FIC 2005-310; Paul Santoro, First Selectman v. Patricia Grassi, Town Clerk, Town of Canterbury; and FIC 2005-311; Paul Santoro, First Selectman v. Patricia Grassi, Town Clerk, Town of Canterbury.  At the request of the complainant, the case caption has been amended to reflect the fact that, at the time of the filing of this complaint, the complainant was First Selectman of the town of Canterbury. 

 

            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 the respondent assumed the office of Canterbury town treasurer on October 12, 2004. 

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated March 2, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of the monthly reports given to the treasurer by the town clerk for the dates January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2004, and informed the respondent that, if she did not provide him with such copies within ten days, he would file a complaint with this Commission. 

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated March 4, 2005, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the request described in paragraph 3, above, and informed the complainant that the reports were not readily available; that while fiscal information from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, was located within her office, she would have to find where earlier fiscal information was stored offsite, and then search through such earlier records for the reports requested by the complainant for the period January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2003 [hereinafter “the requested records”]; that she was a part-time employee who worked only on Wednesdays; and that, in consideration of her other fiduciary duties to the town, she would not be able to provide the complainant with everything he had asked for within ten days.

 

5.  It is found that, under cover letter dated March 9, 2005, the respondent provided the complainant with the reports he requested for July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004, and informed the complainant that she would provide him with copies of the requested records when she located them.   

 

6.  The record in this matter indicates no further communication between the parties relative to the request described in paragraph 3, above, until May 26, 2005, when the complainant renewed his request for the requested records, and informed the respondent that if such records were not received by June 3, 2005, he would file a complaint with this Commission.

 

7.  It is found that, by letter dated June 1, 2005, the respondent replied to the letter described in paragraph 6, above, apologized for the delay in providing the requested records, and informed the complainant that she had located the earlier financial records, which should include the requested records among them.  It is also found that, by such letter, the respondent further informed the complainant that the earlier financial records were located in the old town hall’s vault, to which she had no access without the help of a town clerk, who would have to accompany her and stay with her while she was in the vault; that there was no copying machine in that area; and that the boxes which needed to be searched were very heavy and difficult to move.  The respondent proposed a solution to the complainant as follows: a town workman would go to the vault with the respondent and a town clerk, retrieve a box containing one year’s worth of financial records, and bring the box to the respondent’s office.  The respondent would search for the requested records, copy any that she found, allowing the clerk to return to her own office for the day.  Later, the workman, the clerk, and the respondent would return the box to the vault.  The respondent proposed doing this over the course of the next several weeks, until all relevant boxes had been searched.  Such letter ended with the respondent inviting the complainant to suggest a different solution, if her proposal was not acceptable.

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated June 15, 2005, the complainant responded to the letter described in paragraph 7, above, and characterized such letter as “an unprofessional attempt to confuse, delay, and deny public records to the Selectman’s Office.”  The complainant then renewed his request for copies of the requested records.  The complainant then informed the respondent that he and his assistant would accompany the respondent to the vault, and that all three would search for the requested records. 

 

9.  By letter dated June 22, 2005, the respondent replied to the letter described in paragraph 8, above, and informed the complainant that she would be willing to work with either his assistant or a town clerk in searching for the requested records, but not with him, since, at such time, she felt uncomfortable being with him in the vault, either alone, or with another person.

 

10.  It is found that, shortly thereafter, the respondent and the complainant made plans for the complainant’s assistant and the respondent to work together in search of the requested records inside the vault, using the complainant’s copy machine on June 29, 2005.

 

11.  By letter dated June 27, 2005 and filed on June 29, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by not providing him with copies of the requested records in response to his requests of March 2, 2005, May 26, 2005, and June 15, 2005.  The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondent. 

 

12.  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…receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212…."  

 

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

 

14.  It is found that, on June 29, 2005, the respondent and the complainant’s assistant searched through all relevant records in the vault as planned, and located thirty responsive records.  It is also found that, at such point, the respondent placed all responsive records in her briefcase, and carried them back to her office.  It is further found that the complainant’s assistant did not ask for such records at such time.

 

15.  It is also found that the assistant described in paragraph 14, above, executed a letter on July 15, 2005, to “whom it may concern,” detailing the events of June 29, 2005, but did not copy such letter to the respondent.  Likewise, the record does not indicate that the complainant initiated any further contact with the respondent regarding the requested records contained in her briefcase.  

 

16.  It is found that, upon returning to her office on June 29, 2005, the respondent performed her other necessary duties.  It is further found that the respondent believed that, although she had located all requested records to be found in the vault, she also believed that approximately twelve reports were missing, and it was her intention to further investigate where such missing reports were located in town hall, and then provide the complainant with a full set of the requested records.

 

17.  It is found that, on subsequent Wednesdays, when the respondent worked in town hall, she further searched for the missing records, but ultimately found no other responsive records.  It is further found that, on July 27, 2005, the respondent provided the complainant with copies of all requested records which she maintained, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

18.  It is found that, at all times relevant in this matter, the complainant, through his administrative assistant, had access to the vault described herein, but did not want to retrieve the requested records himself due to the “hot political climate” in Canterbury.   

 

19.  It is found that this matter likely could have been resolved though the Commission’s ombudsman program, since it is essentially an intra-agency dispute over the mechanics of retrieving public records during a breakdown in communication.  Nevertheless, it is concluded that the respondent violated the FOI Act by not promptly providing copies of the requested records to the complainant. 

 

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

 

            1.  The parties are urged to work out their differences without the need to bring a complaint to the Commission.  In the event a complaint is filed, the parties are urged to utilize the Commission’s ombudsman program in order to resolve such complaint.   

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 24, 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:

 

Paul Santoro, First Selectman

Town of Canterbury

One Municipal Drive

Canterbury, CT 06331

 

Cheryl Miller, Treasurer,

Town of Canterbury 

c/o Jean M. D’Aquila, Esq.

547 Main Street

Middletown, CT 06457

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-309FD/paj/5/25/2006