FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

  

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 16, 2006, 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.      By e-mail dated February 3, 2006, the complainant made a request to the respondent for access to, and copies of, any and all letters from individuals with regard to the Lake Lillinonah Authority (hereinafter “LLA”) including letters pertaining to Ann Schiessl, a member of the LLA.

 

3.      It is found that by letter dated February 8, 2006, the respondent advised the complainant that he anticipated that the records responsive to her request would be available for her inspection within 15 days.

 

4.      It is found that during the week of February 26, 2006, the complainant reviewed seven files at the respondent’s office, which the respondent provided in response to the complainant’s February 3, 2006 request.

 

5.      It is found that the complainant was specifically looking for written complaints against Ann Schiessl and the LLA.

 

6.      It is found that the complainant found no written complaints against Ann Schiessl and the LLA in the seven files, described in paragraph 4, above, and the complainant made another request to the respondent, dated March 7, 2006,  and specifically requested access to inspect, and copies of,  written complaints against Ann Schiessl and the LLA. 

 

7.      It is found that, by letter dated March 8, 2006, the respondent informed the complainant that “the files she reviewed were complete”.

 

8.      It is found that the complainant made several more requests to the respondent for access to, and copies of, written complaints against Ann Schiessl and LLA, the last of which was dated March 20, 2006, and to the extent that she received a response from the respondent, such responses were the same or similar to that described in paragraph 7, above. 

 

9.      By letter dated March 27, 2006, and filed on March 28, 2006, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with her request for access to inspect and be provided with copies of written complaints against Ann Schiessl and the LLA.

 

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

 

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 (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(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

12.   It is found that the respondent only received oral complaints against Ann Schiessl and the LLA and that the respondent never received, nor is he aware of, any written complaints filed against Ann Schiessl and the LLA.

 

13.   It is found, therefore, that no written complaints against Ann Schiessl and the LLA exist.

 

14.   It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainant.

 

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:

 

Melinda Kelly

Two Alexander Drive

Brookfield, CT 06804

 

First Selectman,

Town of Brookfield

c/o Francis J. Collins, Esq. and

Thomas Beecher, Esq.

PO Box 440

148 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06813-0440

 

 

__________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-141FD/paj/8/14/2006