FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 6, 2008, 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, by letter dated August 21, 2007, the complainant sent the respondent the following request: 

 

a.       A written statement describing the original intent for which the McMurray Fund was established;

 

b.      A copy of all monies deposited and expended from the McMurray Fund starting July 1, 2001 through July 1, 2007;

 

c.       A copy of the individuals and/or businesses that have donated to the McMurray fund starting July 1, 2001 through July 1, 2007;

 

d.      Are donations to the McMurray Fund tax deductible, if so what is the taxpayer identification number?; and

 

e.       A list showing the items and/or services obtained with monies from the McMurray Fund for the period July 1, 2001 through July 1, 2007.

 

3.      It is found that, by letter dated August 22, 2007, the respondent acknowledged the complainant’s request, but stated that the McMurray Fund was not a public agency or the functional equivalent of a public agency and, therefore, records pertaining to the fund were not subject to the open records provisions of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act. 

 

4.      By letter dated August 27, 2008 and filed August 28, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent’s denial of her request for records violated the FOI Act. 

 

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

 

6.      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.

 

7.      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.”

 

8.      It is found that prior to the hearing in this case, the respondent provided the complainant with the record responsive to the request referred to in paragraph 2d, above.  It is further found that at the hearing in this case, the respondent provided the complainant with his affidavit, which is responsive to the complainant’s request referred to in paragraph 2a, above.  Accordingly, these records are no longer at issue in this case. 

 

9.      It is found that the McMurray Fund, formally known as the McMurray-Kirkland Memorial (the “Fund”), was established in 1985 when donations from a private family, which began in 1975, and donations made in the memory of a patrolman were combined into one fund.

 

10.  It is found that the purpose of the Fund is to permit the Chief of Police to have money in addition to the budget to pay for items that benefit the Police Department and its employees, and to contribute to local groups, such as local youth sports teams and programs.

 

11.  It is found that the Fund was initially set up as a checking account and both the Chief of Police and the Deputy Chief of Police were signatories to the account.

 

12.  It is found that when the Deputy Chief of Police retired, his name was removed from the account and was replaced by the name of a detective sergeant. 

 

13.  It is found that money pertaining to the Fund is now contained within a checking account, a savings account and in a certificate of deposit, all of which are maintained at New Alliance Bank.

 

14.  It is found that the Fund has no current, formal legal status.

 

15.  It is found that members of the public continue to donate money to the Fund.

 

16.  It is found that the respondent’s secretary makes deposits, maintains the checkbook, and reconciles the accounts pertaining to the Fund on a monthly basis.

 

17.  It is further found that the respondent’s secretary keeps records with regard to the donations received, letters of acknowledgement, and money disbursed from the Fund.

 

18.  It is found that disbursements from the Fund are made at the respondent’s discretion. 

 

19.  It is found that the respondent manages the Fund solely due to his position as Police Chief.

 

20.  It is found that the respondent maintains the records described in paragraphs 2b, 2c and 2e, above, and that such records relate to the conduct of the public’s business.  It is therefore concluded that such records are “public records” and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure. 

 

21.  It is found that the respondent has failed to prove that the records described in paragraphs 2b, 2c, and 2e, above, are exempt from mandatory disclosure.

 

22.  Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant’s request, as described in paragraphs 2b, 2c, and 2e, above.

 

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 the requested records described in paragraphs 2b, 2c, and 2e of the findings, free of charge. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 12, 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:

 

Mary Hansen

53 Cedar Lane

Bozrah, CT 06334

           

Chief, Police Department,

Town of Old Saybrook

c/o Lisa S. Lazarek, Esq.

Kainen, Escalera & McHale, PC

21 Oak Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-460FD/paj/3/25/2008