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 2005-501, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford and FIC 2005-502, 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 November 21, 2005, the complainants appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with the Commission’s Final Decision and Orders issued in contested case docket # FIC 2004-544, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford, (hereinafter “FIC 2004-544”).  Specifically, the complainants allege 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 field cards provided to the complainants by the respondent for 127 Highland Avenue and 15 Buena Vista Road lack “hand-written notations and/or hand-drawn sketches”; and

 

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

 

The complainants requested in their letter of complaint that the Commission impose a civil penalty in the amount of $1000.00 against the respondent. 

 

3.  It is found that the Commission issued a Final Decision in FIC 2004-544 by transmittal dated September 30, 2005.

 

4.  In FIC 2004-544 the Commission ordered the following:

  

“1.  Forthwith, the respondent shall search the town’s records and provide the complainants with a certified copy of any existing records found (including, but not limited 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)                    15 Buena Vista Road– inspection for the 2004 Grand List; and

ii)                   127 Highland Avenue – inspection for the 2004 Grand List.

 

2.  Within two weeks of the notice of the final decision in this case, 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 were found.  Such affidavit shall indicate the nature and extent of the respondent’s search.”  [Emphasis in original].   

 

5.  The issue before the Commission is therefore, whether the respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s Orders in docket # 2004-544.

 

6.   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”.

 

7.   With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a, 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 2004-544, wherever physically located, would be searched and not that every town record per se, would be searched.

 

8.  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.

 

9.  It is further found that there is no evidence that relevant records exist, and were not searched.  In addition, the affidavit described in paragraph 6, 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.”

 

10.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-544 by describing the records searched in her affidavit as those “within the custody and control of the Assessor’s office”.

 

11.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that while the complainants take issue with the contents[1] of the field cards provided by the respondent, there is no evidence to support a finding that other field cards exist that were not provided to the complainants in response to the Commission’s order.

 

12.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-544 when she provided the complainants with copies of the field cards. 

 

13.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c, above, the respondent contends that she provided the complainants with a certified copy of the lists produced at the hearing in this matter, and described as pages 1, 2 and 3 of Respondent’s Exhibit A, and Respondent’s Exhibit C.  As proof of her provision of such certified copies to the complainants the respondent produced a receipt dated March 29, 2005.  However, such receipt fails to demonstrate that the respondent complied with the Commission’s order to provide the complainants with certified copies of the lists in question.

14.  Consequently, because the respondent failed to prove that certified copies of the Exhibits as described in paragraph 13, above, were provided to the complainants, it is concluded that the respondent violated the Commission’s order in FIC 2004-544 in this regard.

15.  The Commission in its discretion declines to consider the imposition of a civil penalty in this matter.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainants with a certified copy of pages 1, 2 and 3 of Respondent’s Exhibit A, and Respondent’s Exhibit C.

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/2005-577FD/paj/10/11/2006