FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2006-299 | ||
| Director of Law, City of New London, | |||
| Respondent | December 13, 2006 | ||
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 June 6, 2006, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with:
“access to and copies of all settlements, contracts or other agreements reached among the former residents of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, the City of New London, and the state of Connecticut, from May 1, 2006 through the present date. Our records request specifically seeks the agreements with former plaintiffs William Von Winkle, Thelma Brelesky, Charles Dery and Richard Beyer, and their companies and/or family members where applicable. We would also request the same records of settlements with plaintiffs Susette Kelo and Pasquale Cristofaro and their families, when and if those agreements should be signed.”
(hereinafter “agreements”)
3. Having failed to receive the agreements, the complainants, by letter dated and filed on June 13, 2006, appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying their request for the agreements.
4. 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 …or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. [Emphasis added].
5. Section 1-212(a), G.S., further provides that: “[A]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record”.
6. It is found that the requested agreements are certain settlement agreements entered into between the city of New London (“city”), the New London Development Corporation (a public agency of the city), and certain individuals, whose properties had been taken by the city by eminent domain.[1]
7. It is found that the respondent maintains the agreements at issue, and such agreements are public records within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.[2]
8. Following the close of the hearing in this matter, the respondent submitted the six agreements at issue to the Commission for an in camera inspection. The six agreements have been designated as follows for identification purposes: IC 2006-299 Agreement Kelo, IC 2006-299 Agreement Christofaro, IC 2006-299 Agreement Dery, IC 2006-299 Agreement Brelesky, IC 2006-299 Agreement Beyer, and IC 2006-299 Agreement Von Winkle.[3]
9. The respondent first contends that the agreements are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(4), G.S.
10. Section 1-210(b)(4), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.”
11. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the agreements at issue constitute records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S.
12. It is therefore concluded that the agreements are not exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(4), G.S.
13. The respondent next contends that the agreements contain a confidentiality clause, which prohibits their public disclosure.
14. This Commission takes administrative notice that it has previously ruled when addressing the issue of the disclosure of settlement agreements entered into by public agencies, that such agencies may not simply contract away the public’s right to know under the FOI Act by including a provision prohibiting any party to the agreement from disclosing its terms. See e.g. contested case #s FIC 2001-530, David Critchell and Waterbury Republican-American v. Corporation Counsel, City of Torrington (Final Decision dated June 26, 2002), and FIC 94-063, Carol L. Panke v. Bloomfield Town Manager (Final Decision dated August 10, 1994).
15. In addition, in this case, the confidentiality clauses contained in the settlement agreements specifically recognize that the parties may be required to disclose such agreements if “required by law”.
16. It is concluded that the FOI Act is such a law that requires disclosure.
17. It is therefore concluded that the agreements should have been promptly turned over to the complainants and that the respondent’s failure to do so constituted a violation of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainants with a copy of the agreements, without charge, if he has not already done so.
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:
47 Eugene O’Neill Drive
New London, CT 06320
Director of Law, City of New London
c/o Thomas Londregan, Esq.
38 Huntington Street
PO Box 1351
New London, CT 06320-1351
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2006-299FD/paj/12/19/2006
[1] In a case that gained national attention, the individuals whose properties were taken appealed such taking all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, which Court resolved the issue in favor of the city. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). The agreements at issue in this case were entered into after the Court issued its decision in Kelo.
[2] Four of the six agreements at issue had been signed by the parties to such agreements as of the date of the complainants’ request at issue herein, and described in paragraph 2, of the findings, above. The other two agreements were signed on June 30, 2006, after the filing of the complainants’ appeal in this matter.
[3] The respondent submitted two sets of the six agreements to the Commission for in camera inspection i.e., twelve agreements in all. One set was submitted in unredacted form, and the other with redactions.