FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

  

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 27, 2006, at which time the complainant appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  However, the respondent failed to appear.  The Commission’s records reflect that the respondent received timely notice of the hearing in this matter. 

           

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 December 30, 2005, and filed on January 4, 2006, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with the Commission’s order in contested case docket # FIC 2004-286, Martha Lemmon v. East Norwalk Improvement Association (hereinafter FIC 2004-286).  Specifically, the complainant alleges that:

 

a.       as of the date of her complaint in this matter, she had not received the records ordered disclosed by the Commission in FIC 2004-286; and

b.      although a May 18, 2005 letter from the respondent indicated that “other” records were available for pick up, when she arrived at the respondent’s offices she was informed by the librarian that there were no such documents to be picked up.

 

3.  This Commission held a hearing in FIC 2004-286 on February 2, 2005, during which the complainant alleged that some records were not provided to her by the respondent.[1]

 

4.  The Commission, in an attempt to get to the bottom of whether records were indeed missing from those provided to the complainant by the respondent, issued the following order in its April 13, 2005 Final Decision in FIC 2004-286: 

2.  Forthwith, the complainant shall review the records she was provided, determine which records appear to be missing and so inform the respondent in writing.  The respondent shall then forthwith upon receipt of such communication from the complainant conduct a diligent search of its records to ascertain if additional records responsive to the complainant’s request, as described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, exist.  Upon concluding its search, the respondent shall forthwith inform the complainant in writing if records are located.  If located, such records shall forthwith be provided to the complainant.  If no additional records are located the respondent shall forthwith so inform the complainant in writing.  [Emphasis added].

5.  It is found that the complainant informed the respondent of precisely what records had not been provided to her, i.e., the records that were missing.[2]

 

6.  It is found that the respondent then, by letter dated May 18, 2005, informed the complainant that, “we have all the documentation requested with the exception of the invoices from Baker &Taylor.  We have been in touch with Baker & Taylor to help us in this matter … We hope to have some answers soon.  In the meantime, if you would like to pick up the other documents you requested please let Terry Rooney know and he will put the package together for you.”

 

7.  It is found that following her receipt of the May 18, 2005 letter, described in paragraph 6, above, the complainant visited the respondent’s office and was informed by Mr. Rooney, through the librarian, that there were no documents to pick up.

 

8.  It is found that the respondent failed to fully comply with this Commission’s order as described in paragraph 4, above, when it failed to:

 

a)                            forthwith, provide the complainant with the records described in Claimant’s Exhibit B as well as the “other documents” referenced in the respondent’s May 18, 2005 letter, described in paragraphs 6 and 7, above;

b)                            forthwith, inform the complainant in writing if records responsive to her request as specified in Claimant’s Exhibit B were located; and

c)                            if no additional records were located, to forthwith so inform the complainant in writing.

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

1.  If the respondent has not already done so, the respondent shall within ten (10) days of the Notice of Final Decision in this matter, provide the complainant with:

a.  all the records described in Claimant’s Exhibit B, as well as the “other documents” referenced in the respondent’s May 18, 2005 letter, described in paragraphs 6 and 7, of the findings above;

 

b.  inform the complainant in writing if records responsive to her request as specified in Claimant’s Exhibit B were located; and

 

c.  if no additional records are located, to so inform the complainant in writing.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 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:

 

Martha Lemmon

PO Box 2060

Westport, CT 06880

 

East Norwalk Improvement Association

c/o John A. Milici, Esq.

Bove & Milici

96 East Avenue

Norwalk, CT 06851

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-005FD/paj/12/19/2006