FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 19, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with docket #FIC 2005-617, Frank A. Loda v. Robert J. Koskelowski, First Selectman, Town of Seymour; George Temple, Town Counsel, Town of Seymour; Patrick Lombardi, Deputy First Selectman, Town of Seymour; John D. Conroy, Jr., Selectman, Town of Seymour; John Putorti, Selectman, Town of Seymour; and Board of Selectman, Town of Seymour; #FIC 2006-032, Frank A. Loda v. Board of Selectmen, Town of Seymour; and #FIC 2006-033, Frank A. Loda v. Robert J. Koskelowski, First Selectman, Town of Seymour; and George Temple, Town Counsel, Town of Seymour.

 

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 on October 18, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with the following records pertaining to a lawsuit which had been brought against the town of Seymour:

 

“all documentation available that would identify who authorized the Town’s insurance company attorney to submit a letter to the Superior Court acknowledging that Seymour would be responsible to pay ‘all awards Officer Bailey Cook’ would be responsible for”

(hereinafter “requested records”).

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated October 20, 2005, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2, above, and informed the complainant that the town counsel was reviewing the request because the information was not available in the respondent’s office, but would be “available as soon as possible.”

 

4.  It is found that the complainant, by letter dated November 15, 2005 to the respondent, renewed his request described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated November 17, 2005, the respondent informed the complainant that, “I too have requested this information.  Once I receive it I will send you a copy…I cannot produce documentation that I do not have”.

 

6.  Having failed to receive access to the requested records, the complainant, by letter dated December 12, 2005 and filed on December 14, 2005, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him prompt access to the requested records.

 

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

“[e]xcept 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…."

 

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

           

9.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain or keep on file any records that are responsive to the complainant’s request.

10.  It is found that the lawsuit referenced by the complainant and described in paragraph 2, above, was filed against a police officer of the town of Seymour during a prior administration when the respondent was not the First Selectman. 

            11.  It is found that upon receipt of the complainant’s October 18, 2005 request, described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent thoroughly searched his files, i.e., the files of the office of the First Selectman.  He then requested that the town attorney search the town attorney’s files, which was done.  Subsequently, upon receipt of the complainant’s November 15, 2005 request, described in paragraph 4, above, the respondent contacted the “Insurance” attorney, who was handling the lawsuit for the town of Seymour, and requested that such attorney search his files and turn over any responsive records.  No responsive records were located.  

12.  No evidence was produced at the hearing in this matter that records responsive to the complainant’s request exist.

13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

 

            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 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:

 

Frank A. Loda 

27 Osprey Drive

Seymour, CT 06483

 

Robert J. Koskelowski,

First Selectman,

Town of Seymour

c/o George Temple, Esq.

241 Coram Avenue

Shelton, CT 06484

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-602FD/paj/11/13/2006