FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 1, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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, on the evening of Wednesday, September 14, 2005, during a North Haven Board of Finance meeting, the complainant asked the First Selectman of North Haven [hereinafter “the first selectman”] for information about a proposed bridge construction project which was to be discussed and voted upon at a town meeting scheduled for September 21, 2005 [hereinafter “the town meeting”].  It is found that, at such time, the first selectman informed the complainant that he could call the first selectman’s office to get the information he wanted. 

 

3.  It is found that, on Friday, September 16, 2005, the complainant telephoned the first selectman’s office, spoke with the first selectman’s assistant [hereinafter “the assistant”], and requested access to inspect plans for the bridge described in paragraph 2, above, and a breakdown of costs for the bridge project [hereinafter “the requested records”].

 

4.  It is found that, on Monday, September 19, 2005, the assistant telephoned the complainant and informed him that the respondent maintained the requested records.  It is also found that the complainant then telephoned the respondent, who informed the complainant that he was free to inspect the requested records at the respondent’s office.  It is further found that the parties made arrangements for the complainant to visit the respondent’s office to inspect the requested records at a mutually convenient time, 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, September 20, 2005. 

 

5.  It is found that, at 9:00 A.M. on Tuesday, September 20, 2005, the respondent afforded the complainant full opportunity to inspect the requested records.  It is also found that, at such time, the complainant first asked for copies of the requested records.  It is found that the complainant was discussing obtaining such copies with the respondent’s clerk when the respondent informed the complainant that, if he wished copies, he would have to make his request in writing, and bring it to the North Haven Finance Director [hereinafter “the finance director”], who processed all FOI requests for copies of public records.  It is found that, at such time, the complainant informed the respondent that he was not so much interested in obtaining copies as in having a map of the proposed project [hereinafter “the map”] available to the public at the town meeting.  It is found that the respondent then informed the complainant that he could not assure him that such map would be available at such meeting. 

 

6.  It is found that, when the respondent could not assure the complainant that the map would be available at the town meeting, the complainant left the respondent’s office, and thereafter did not communicate with him again until the town meeting. 

 

7.  It is further found that, upon leaving the respondent’s office, the complainant next proceeded to the finance director’s office, where the finance director informed him that his request for copies must be made in writing, that it would be reviewed by North Haven Town Counsel, and that it might take up to four days to process.  It is found that the complainant decided at such time not to submit a written request for copies of the requested records and that, as of the hearing in this matter, had not submitted such request. 

 

8.  It is found that, during the September 21, 2005 town meeting, the complainant asked the respondent if he had brought the map, but was instructed by the town moderator that he was not allowed to question members of the audience.  It is further found that the map was not presented at such meeting.   

 

9.  By letter dated September 23, 2005, and filed with the Commission on September 27, 2005, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying him a copy of the map promptly since he required the complainant to file a written request for such record, and that the respondent’s purpose in such denial was to deprive the public of the opportunity to review the map at the town meeting.   

 

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

 

“[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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours…or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  ” 

 

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

 

12.  It is found that the respondent keeps on file the requested records, including the map, and that such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

13.  It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with prompt access to inspect the requested records, and that he promptly informed the complainant of the procedure to obtain copies of such records. 

 

14.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the FOI Act does not require that public agencies such as the respondent insist upon a written request before supplying copies of public records.  Although the complainant’s contention is accurate, the plain language of the statute clearly permits the respondent to require written requests for copies of public records. 

 

15.  Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

16.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that North Haven town officials had given him “the run-around” in an attempt to thwart his desire to present the map at the town meeting of September 21, 2005, and that town officials erred in not presenting enough information to the public before and during such meeting.  However, such allegations were not fairly raised in the complaint, and the only town official named as respondent herein acted reasonably and promptly in response to the complainant’s needs.  Since the complainant did not submit a written request for copies of the requested records, the Commission cannot determine whether the respondent’s response thereto might have been prompt within the meaning of the FOI Act. 

 

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 regular meeting of July 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:

 

Douglas Wood

55 Whitney Ridge Terrace

North Haven, CT 06473

 

Director, Department of

Public Works, Town of

North Haven

c/o Robert Ciulla, Esq.

PO Box 219

North Haven, CT 06473

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-466FD/paj/8/2/2006