FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 2, 2006 and October 12, 2006, at which times 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 13, 2005, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide certified copies of public records.   

 

            3.  It is found that, by letter dated and hand-delivered on November 9, 2005, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with a “complete certified record” regarding a certain commercial personal property tax assessment appeal file for which an assessment reduction had been granted.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent had not replied to the request by December 13, 2005, the date the appeal in this matter was filed with the Commission. 

 

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 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.” 

 

7.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.  At the March 2, 2006 hearing on this matter, the parties represented to the hearing officer that they wished to resolve the matter without the necessity of a hearing.  However, the complainants subsequently requested that the hearing be reopened, alleging that the respondent had not complied with their request.  That request was granted, and the hearing was reopened on October 12, 2006.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent provided uncertified copies of three of the requested records on March 24, 2006, and certified copies of all five of the requested records on April 5, 2006.

 

10.  The complainants contend that their request was not satisfactorily complied with, because the complainants don’t know whether they received a complete copy of the entire file they requested.

 

11.  It is found, however, that the complainants received a complete copy of the entire file they requested.

 

12.  It is also found that the respondent failed to provide the requested records promptly, within the meaning of §1-212(a), G.S.

 

13.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness requirement contained in §1-212(a), G.S.

 

14.  Following the hearing on this matter, the respondent, pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S.,  requested that civil penalties be imposed against the complainants, on the grounds that the complainants had “taken appeals and filed libelous briefs and motions without having reasonable grounds, and solely for the purpose of harassing and humiliating the respondent, and an employee of the Town of Branford, Trista Clyne.

 

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

 

If the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, after such person 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 that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. 

 

16.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its records and files in docket #FIC 2005-589, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Trista Clyne, Administrative Assistant, Board of Selectmen, Town of Branford.

 

17.  At the hearing on docket #FIC 2005-589, and again at the hearing on this matter, the complainants raised irrelevant allegations about an employee of the town of Branford, and the hearing officer more than once cautioned the complainants that such allegations would not be considered by the hearing officer.  The complainants generally, if reluctantly, complied with the hearing officer’s recommendation to pursue a different line of testimony.

 

18.  Also, it is found that, given that the respondents provided the requested certified records shortly following the initial hearing in this matter, little reason remained for the complainant to request a re-opened hearing.

 

19.  However, it is also found that the complaint in this matter was filed long before the parties attempted to resolve the complainants’ request, and long before the certified records were ultimately provided.  Although some evidence tends to show that the complainants are harassing an employee of the town of Branford, the complainants in turn believe that they are being unreasonably obstructed in their requests for records. 

 

20.  It is concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the complainants took this appeal frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent, within the meaning of §1-206(b)(2), G.S.

 

            21.  The respondent’s motion for the imposition of a civil penalty is therefore denied.

 

 

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

 

           

1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement contained in §1-212(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 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

 

John Opie, First Selectman,

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/2005-597FD/paj/11/9/2006