FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 18, 2006, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, contested cases, docket #s FIC 2005-500, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford, FIC 2005-502, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford and FIC 2005-577, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford were consolidated with the above-captioned case.

                             

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 of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on October 17, 2005, the complainants appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with the Commission’s Final Decision and Orders issued in contested case docket # FIC 2004-476, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford, (hereinafter “FIC 2004-476”).  Among the relief requested by the complainants is that a civil penalty in the amount of $1000.00 be imposed against the respondent.

 

3.  It is found that the Commission held a hearing in FIC 2004-476 on May 26, 2005, and issued a Final Decision in the matter by transmittal dated August 3, 2005.

 

4.  At the hearing in this matter the complainants specifically alleged that:

 

a.  the affidavit provided to the complainants by the respondent in purported compliance of the Commission’s order indicates that the files searched were “all files within the custody and control of the Assessor’s office” and not what was ordered by the Commission to be searched, i.e., “the town’s records wherever located”;

 

b.  the respondent failed to provide any hand-written notations and/or hand-drawn sketches;

 

c.  no certified copies of lists were produced by the respondent; and

 

d.  the certification on some of the field cards provided does not indicate “for the Grand List year _ _ _ _”.

 

5.  In FIC 2004-476, the Commission ordered the following:

  

“1.  The respondent shall:

 

a)   provide the complainants with a certified copy of Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1, if such certified copies have not yet been provided;

 

 b)  search the town’s records and provide the complainants with a certified copy of any additional existing records found, (including, but not limited to records similar to field cards and lists such as Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1) whether such records are stored electronically or in paper format, concerning the following properties, and which records identify in any way a person(s) or business entity that was either assigned to, or did inspect the following properties:

 

i)    3 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

ii)   18 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

iii)   27 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

iv)   17 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

v)    15 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

vi)   3 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

vii)  23 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

viii)    7 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

ix)     23 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2004 Grand List;

x)    16 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xi)   11 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xii)  25 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xiii)   13 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xiv)    18 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xv)    17 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xvi)   15 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xvii)   27 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xviii)     5 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List; and

xix)      21 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List.

 

2.  If no records are found, the respondent shall forthwith, provide the complainants with an affidavit indicating that after a complete and thorough search of the town’s records no records responsive to the complainants’ requests, except Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1, were found.  Such affidavit shall indicate the nature and extent of the respondent’s search.”    

 

 6.  The sole issue before the Commission is therefore whether the respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s Orders in FIC 2004-476.

 

7.   It is found that, by letter dated October 18, 2005, the respondent provided the complainants with certified copies of five records located following her search, and an affidavit attesting that: “I have searched all files within the custody and control of the Assessor’s office for relevant additional documents…I can state that to the best of my knowledge and belief, all relevant records relating to inspections requested by the Complainants, and the orders issued by the Commission, have been produced”.

 

8.   With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 4a, above, it is found that the Commission’s order was meant to ensure that all existing records that are relevant and responsive to the complainants’ original records request in FIC 2004-476, wherever physically located, would be searched and not that every town record per se, would be searched.

 

9.  It is found that the records searched by the respondent included all relevant records and that such records are responsive to the Commission’s order.  The relevant records include records that were of specific concern to both the complainants and the Commission, i.e., records kept in the locked attic at the Branford town hall, as well as records stored at the Branford Hills School.

 

10.  It is further found that there is no evidence that relevant records exist, and were not searched.  In addition, the affidavit described in paragraph 7, above, states, and the respondent’s witness credibly testified at the hearing in this matter, that: “all relevant records relating to inspections requested by the complainants, and the orders issued by the Commission, have been produced.”

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-476 by describing the records searched in her affidavit as those “within the custody and control of the Assessor’s office”.

 

12.  With respect to the complainants’ allegation concerning hand-drawn sketches and hand-written notes, described in paragraph 4b, above, their position is that the respondent should have such records.  However, there is no evidence that such records exist and were not provided to the complainants by the respondent.  Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-476 when she failed to provide the complainants with hand-drawn sketches and hand-written notes.

 

13.  With respect to the complainants’ allegation concerning certified copies of lists, described in paragraph 4c, above, it is found that the order in FIC 2004-476 was for the provision of certified copies of “any additional existing records found” by the respondent upon the conclusion of the search ordered by the Commission.  The complainants contend that they already have certain lists in “uncertified” form but never received such lists in “certified” form from the respondent.  It is found that the uncertified lists that the complainants have are not “additional existing records found” within the meaning of the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-476. [1]

 

14.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-476 when she failed to provide the complainants with certified copies of the lists the complainants already possess.

 

15.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 4d, above, the complainants contend that while some field cards were certified and included the phrase “for the Grand List Year_ _ _ _” others did not contain such phrase.

 

16.  It is concluded that the complainants’ have failed to allege any conduct that constitutes a violation of any provision of the FOI Act as alleged in paragraph 4d, above.

 

17.  However, at the hearing in this matter counsel for the respondent represented that if the complainants wish to have the phrasing of the certification changed, that the town of Branford would do so to reflect the phrase “for the Grand List Year_ _ _ _”.

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 October 11, 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:

 

Misty Williams 

225 Stony Creek Road

Branford, CT 06405

 

Dawn Massey

225 Stony Creek Road

Branford, CT 06405

 

Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor,

Town of Branford

c/o Elizabeth P. Gilson, Esq.

383 Orange Street

New Haven, CT 06511

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-501FD/paj/10/11/2006