FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 20, 2006, at which time the complainants 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 letter of complaint filed December 5, 2005, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying their request to review, inspect and copy certain public records.   

 

            3.  It is found that the complainants, by letter dated November 2, 2005, requested that the respondent schedule an appointment:

 

… to review and inspect all of the Town’s records, wherever located, from October 1, 2002 until the date hereof containing field card worksheets with hand-written notations and/or hand-drawn sketches that: (1) are awaiting input to the computer; or (2) have already been input to the computer.  Thereafter, I anticipate selecting certain of the records to be provided to me properly certified.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent did not schedule such an appointment with the complainants.

 

5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

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, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

7.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent, by not responding to the complainants’ request for an appointment to inspect and copy public records, violated §1-210(a), G.S.  

 

9.  The complainants requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

10.  Section 1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

… upon the finding that a denial of any right created by the Freedom of Information Act was without reasonable grounds and after the custodian or other official directly responsible for the denial has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against the custodian or other official a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. 

 

11.  It is found that the complainants are in litigation with the town of Branford and are seeking, through production requests, essentially the same records that are the subject of this complaint.  It is found that the respondent is aware of those production requests, and believed that the negotiation of those production requests between the complainants and counsel to the town relieved her of her obligations under the FOI Act to provide the requested records.

 

            12.  It is concluded that, although the existence of production requests for the same records does not excuse the respondent’s failure to comply with the FOI Act, it does provide reasonable grounds for her failure to comply with the Act.

 

13.  The Commission in its discretion therefore declines to impose civil penalties against the respondent.

 

            14.  The complainants also requested that the respondent be ordered to provide the requested records, “properly certified,” free of charge; and that the respondent be ordered to execute an affidavit attesting to the reason why she failed to produce the requested records.

 

            15.  For the reasons stated in paragraph 12, above, the Commission in its discretion declines to order the requested relief.   

 

 

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

 

            1.  The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with access to inspect the requested records.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 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

 

Trista Clyne, Administrative Assistant,

Board of Selectmen,

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/2005-589FD/paj/10/30/2006