FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 13, 2010, at which time the complainant and respondents 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 2009-759; Donal C. Collimore v. City Attorney, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport;  Docket FIC 2009-760; Donal C. Collimore v. Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport; Docket # FIC 2009-761; Regensburger Enterprises v. Planning and Zoning Commission, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport; Docket # FIC 2009-762; Donal C. Collimore v. Records Official, City Council, City of Bridgeport; and City Council, City of Bridgeport; and Docket # FIC 2009-763; Donal C. Collimore v. Mayor, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport.

 

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.   The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that, by letter dated December 3, 2009, the complainant requested from the respondents “all documentation including, but not limited to, biographical information, notes of interviews, and/or results of background investigations concerning the appointment and/or confirmation of Thomas Fedele, 215 Burnsford Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut to a position with the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Bridgeport.”

 

3.      By letter dated December 14, 2009, and filed on December 16, 2009, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the records, described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

4.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records or files” as:

 

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

 

5.      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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

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

 

7.      It is found that the complainant mailed the request for records, described in paragraph 2, above, to the respondents at the wrong address, and that the request was not received by the respondents prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter.

 

8.      It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act regarding the complainant’s request.

 

 

            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 September 8, 2010.

 

 

_________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

Donal C. Collimore

1150 Post Road

Fairfield, CT  06824

 

Ethics Commission; City of Bridgeport; and

City of Bridgeport

c/o Melanie J. Howlett, Esq.

Office of the City Attorney

999 Broad Street, 2^nd Floor

Bridgeport, CT  06604

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2009-764/FD/cac/9/13/2010