FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 6, 2007, at which time the complainant 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.      It is found that on or about April 18, 2007, the complainant’s written request for records was delivered to the Mayor’s office.  Pursuant to the request, the complainant sought copies of the following records:

 

a.       “Any and all documentation reflecting the work schedule of the Mayor for the period of 7/1/05 to 4/15/07 including, but not limited to calendars, date books, schedule books, agendas, appointment books, diaries, both in written and electronic format, including Microsoft Outlook calendar”

 

b.      “Any and all documentation reflecting the attendance at work of the Mayor for the period of 7/1/05 to 4/15/07”

 

c.       “Any and all financial documentation, i.e. checks, payment vouchers, payment requisitions, reflecting the work schedule of the Mayor for the period of 7/1/05 to 4/15/07”

 

d.      “Any and all financial documentation, i.e. checks payment vouchers, payment requisitions reflecting the attendance at work of the Mayor for the period of 7/1/05 to 4/15/07”

 

e.       “Any and all documentation reflecting the Town’s policy regarding sick, vacation, personal, and compensatory time afforded the Mayor for the period from 7/1/05 to 4/15/07”

 

f.        “Any and all documentation reflecting the sick, vacation, personal, and compensatory time taken by the Mayor for the period from 7/1/05 to 4/15/07” and

 

g.       “Any and all documentation reflecting the amount of sick, vacation, personal, and compensatory time paid by the Town to the Mayor for the period from 7/1/05 to 4/15/07 whether such time was taken or not.” 

 

3.      It is found that, by letter dated April 30, 2007, the respondent acknowledged the complainant’s request for records and indicated that he was in the process of gathering the responsive records. 

 

4.      It is found that, on May 22, 2007, the respondent provided the complainant with a redacted copy of his electronic calendar from July 2005 through April 2007, and a redacted copy of his paper calendar from July 2005 through April 2007. 

 

5.      By letter dated June 6, 2007 and filed June 13, 2007, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for the records described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

6.      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 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

 

 

 

7.      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 . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with 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.      At the hearing in this matter, the parties stipulated that the records at issue are the respondent’s electronic and paper calendars.

 

10.  The respondent maintains that some of the entries on his paper calendar are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-200(5), G.S., because the entries in the calendar do not relate to the conduct of the public’s business. 

 

11.  It is found, however, that the respondent maintains the records described in paragraph 4, above, and it is therefore concluded that such records are “public records” and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure. 

 

12.  At the close of the hearing in the matter, the respondent submitted the records comprising the respondent’s paper calendar to the Commission for an in camera inspection (hereinafter the “in camera records”).  Such in camera records shall be identified as IC-2007-346-1 through IC-2007-346-53. 

13.  It is found that the respondent’s secretary is the person who maintains the paper calendar on a day-to-day basis, which calendar contains the respondent’s schedule and a few details regarding the secretary’s schedule.

 

14.  It is found, after a careful review of the in camera records, that the redacted information does not fall within any of the exemptions to disclosure under the FOI Act.

 

15.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by redacting his electronic and paper calendars.[1]

 

16.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant raised an issue with regard to the amount of fees the respondent charged for the records.

 

17.  It is found, however, that the complainant did not raise the issue of fees in the complaint. 

 

18.  It is, therefore, concluded that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over this issue.   

 

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

 

1.  The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of his electronic calendar and the paper calendar, without redactions, free of charge. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Gene Ruocco

c/o Patricia A. Cofrancesco, Esq.

89 Kimberly Avenue

East Haven, CT 06512

           

Mayor, Town of East Haven

c/o Lawrence C. Sgrignari, Esq.

Gesmonde, Pietrosimone & Sgrignari, LLC

3127 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-346FD/paj/1/29/2008