FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 21, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For the purpose of hearing, this matter was consolidated with docket #FIC 2006-152; Nancy Rossi v. Democratic Registrar of Voters, City of West Haven.

 

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.      It is found that by letter dated March 6, 2006, the complainant made a request to the respondent for “all documents pertaining to the claim that bond/grant money was used for day-to-day expenses and not used for the intended purpose.”

 

3.      By letter dated March 31, 2006 and filed on April 4, 2006, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with the request described in paragraph 2, above.

 

4.      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 . . .  receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

5.      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.” 

 

6.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant explained that she wanted to inspect the documents that the mayor reviewed prior to making the statement that grant money, in the amount of 2.3 million dollars, had been inappropriately spent.  The complainant explained that she believed that the mayor must have reviewed records from the finance department in order to reach the figure of 2.3 million, which records would have included invoices and checks.  The complainant indicated that she wanted to inspect all such records.

 

7.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that, at some time prior to the complainant’s March 6, 2006 request, the mayor of the city of West Haven stated that 2.3 million dollars of city grant money had been inappropriately spent.

 

9.      It is found that the mayor made the statement described in paragraph 8, above, after certain verbal interviews with city department heads, including the head of the finance department, and after his review of the city’s year-to-date budget report and a document captioned “Operating Budget Deficits,” which was drafted by the finance department.

 

10.   It is found that the complainant had already been provided with the document captioned “Operating Budget Deficits” by another city official, however, the respondent did not provide the complainant with a copy of the year-to-date budget report until June 19, 2006. 

 

11.    It is found that the delay in providing the complainant with the year-to-date budget report was due to staffing problems that resulted from the change in administration.   

 

12.   Notwithstanding the finding in paragraph 11, above, it is found that the respondent failed to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the year-to-date budget report, which report was responsive to the complainant’s records request.  It is concluded that the respondent, thereby, violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., in that regard. 

 

13.   It is found that when the respondent provided the complainant with the year-to-date budget report, the mayor highlighted certain expenditures to provide the complainant with examples of the inappropriate spending he was referring to in his statement.

 

14.   It is found that the highlighted expenditures did not equal 2.3 million dollars, however, it was not the intention of the mayor to provide the complainant with an exhaustive accounting of all the misappropriated money but rather, as a courtesy, to provide the complainant with an idea of the types of inappropriate spending he was referring to in his statement.

 

15.    At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent should have also provided her with the invoices and checks that corresponded to the highlighted expenditures.

 

16.     It is found, however, that the mayor did not review invoices or checks prior to making his statement and therefore, such records were not responsive to the complainant’s March 6, 2006 request.

 

On the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order is recommended by the Commission.

 

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:

 

Nancy Rossi

Twelve Robin Road

West Haven, CT 06516

 

Office of the Mayor,

City of West Haven

c/o Henry C. Szadkowski, Esq.

West Haven Corporation Counsel

355 Main Street

West Haven, CT 06516

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-150FD/paj/10/30/2006