FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Robert H. Kalechman, | |||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2006-050 | ||
| First Selectman, Town of Simsbury, | |||
| Respondent | August 9, 2006 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 25, 2006, 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, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with docket #FIC 2005-606, Robert H. Kalechman v. First Selectman, Town of Simsbury.
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. By letter dated March 26, 2005, the complainant requested from the respondent a breakdown of costs for building the Simsbury Band Shell, also known as the Performing Arts Center at Simsbury Meadow. The complainant also requested information identifying the architect, as well as the builders of Simsbury Band Shell. The complainant’s request included the architects design and all of his costs.
3. By letter dated January 24, 2006, the complainant sent a second request to the respondent, indicating that he had not received a response to his first request described in paragraph 2, above, and asking for the following specific information:
a. names of all officials, state and local, who received free gifts and tickets related to the Simsbury Band Shell project;
b. names of any contractors who were given free tickets and participated in kind to the design, building, and raising of funds for the Simsbury Band Shell project;
c. procedures in the selection of Gold & Orluk;
d. how much money was paid to Gold & Orluk;
e. the duties of Gold & Orluk;
f. the contributor list from which Gold & Orluk solicited;
g. whether or not Peter Gold and Richard Orluk, Jr. were given special consideration regarding the selection of their firm; and
h. who was allowed to bid on the Simsbury Band Shell project?
4. By letter dated January 27, 2006, the respondent informed the complainant that he was in the process of compiling the information that the complainant requested, as described in paragraph 3, above.
5. By letter dated February 1, 2006, counsel for the respondent notified the complainant that he had compiled copies of records responsive to the complainant’s request as described in paragraph 3, above. The respondent indicated that all such records would be made available at the respondent’s office.
6. By letter of complaint dated February 2, 2006 and filed February 7, 2006, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to provide the requested information as described in paragraph 3, above.
7. 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…receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….
8. Section 1-212(a), 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.”
9. It is found that the respondent maintains records containing the information requested by the complainant and such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. It is found that the complainant filed his complaint prior to receiving the response letter described in paragraph 5, above. At the hearing on this matter, both parties acknowledged that the respondent had provided the complainant with copies of records for his inspection and review prior to the hearing.
11. It is found that at the time the respondent provided the records to the complainant, he also offered to interpret and explain any of the records provided to him and to discuss the lack of any records the complainant believed should exist.
12. It is found that the complainant took home the records provided to him, to review them, but that he had not fully inspected them as of the date of the hearing in this matter. Nonetheless, the complainant contends that he has not been provided with all of the requested records.
13. It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with copies of all of the records he has that contain the information requested by the complainant.
14. It is also found that the respondent is still willing to meet with the complainant in order to answer any questions that the complainant has concerning the records produced in response to the complainant’s request.
15. In light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.
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 August 9, 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:
First Selectman,
Town of Simsbury
c/o Robert M. DeCrescenzo, Esq.
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy
PO Box 231277
One State Street
Hartford, CT 06123-1277
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2006-050FD/paj/8/10/2006