FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 14, 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 July 13, 2005, the complainant requested from the respondent copies of the following records, which shall hereinafter be referenced as “the requested records”:

 

a. any and all legal services agreements by and between the Town of East Haven and Attorney Lawrence Sgrignari for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005;

 

b. any and all legal services agreements by and between the Town of East Haven and the law firm of Gesmonde, Pietrosimone & Sgrignari for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005;

 

c.  any and all legal services agreements by and between the Town of East Haven and Attorney Hugh Keefe for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005;

 

d.  any and all legal services agreements by and between the Town of East Haven and the law firm of Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005;

 

e.  any and all legal services agreements by and between the Town of East Haven and any other attorneys and/or law firms for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005;

 

f.  any and all payment requests, payment requisitions, payment vouchers and/or any other documentation reflecting payments requested and payments made to the above attorneys and/or law firms for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005, including all back-up documentation submitted by the attorneys and/or law firms substantiating their request for payment, including but not limited to timesheets reflecting the amount of time expended relative to a particular matter. 

 

The complainant specified therein that the Town of East Haven necessarily would include its boards, commissions, agents, servants, and employees. 

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated July 19, 2005, the East Haven Director of Administration and Management responded to the complainant on behalf of the respondent, and informed the complainant that the respondent does not maintain the requested records within his office, that it is not the responsibility of the respondent to submit such request to the proper East Haven department, and that the complainant should redirect such request to “the appropriate town department.”

 

4.  By letter of complaint dated July 25, 2005, and filed July 27, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act, since he had not responded to the request described in paragraph 2, above.

 

5.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, since, contrary to what was stated therein, the respondent did respond to the request described in paragraph 2, above.  However, the complaint can fairly be read as appealing the failure to provide copies of the requested records.  See, Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 167 (1993) (it is unreasonable to deny a member of the public access to the FOI Act simply because of arguable interpretations in the form in which a request for information is couched).  Therefore, such motion was denied. 

 

6.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

7.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

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 part that: “[a]ny 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 are maintained by East Haven town departments and are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

10.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent contended that he is only responsible for records specifically maintained and kept on file within his office, and that he cannot be expected to be responsible for all FOI requests made to the Town of East Haven.  

 

11.  The complainant contends that, although the requested records are not kept within the office of the mayor, the complainant should not have to determine which town agency possesses the records she seeks.

 

12.  The Commission agrees with the complainant.  It is found that the respondent is the chief executive officer of the Town of East Haven, and is responsible for the administration of town government.

 

13.  It is concluded that the chief executive officer of a public agency has the responsibility to arrange for the production of public records maintained by agencies for which he is responsible.  See, e.g., Docket #FIC 90-337, Richard R. Lindquist v. Dean, Medical School, University of Connecticut Health Center (finding that the Chief Executive Officer of the University of Connecticut Medical School violated the FOI Act by failing to arrange prompt access to records of departments that are ultimately accountable to the Chief Executive Officer); Docket #FIC 88-462, Kris Cieplak and Concerned Citizens for Clean Air, Mayor, City of Ansonia (finding that it is reasonable for members of the public seeking several types of public records from a city to request them from the city's chief executive officer and expect to be directed to the appropriate record locations, and concluding that the chief executive officer violated the FOI Act by failing to provide access to records of attorneys' fees).

 

14.  It is concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to direct the complainant to the custodian of the requested records or forward the complainant’s request to the appropriate agency.

 

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 take the necessary measures to inform requesters of the appropriate department which maintains requested records. 

 

           

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 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:

 

Susan Friello

c/o Patricia Cofrancesco, Esq.

89 Kimberly Avenue

East Haven, CT 06795

 

Mayor, Town of East Haven

c/o Lawrence C. Sgrignari, Esq. and

Robert M. Ward, Esq.

3127 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518-2344

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-367FD/paj/7/12/2006