FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Zeke McCormack
and The Evening Sentinel
Complainant Docket #FIC 86-69
against
Administrative
Assistant to the Mayor of Shelton
Respondent April 23, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on April 2, 1986 at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of section
1-18a(a), G.S.
2.
By letter dated February 27, 1986, the complainant requested copies of
any revenue sharing requests from city departments filed for 1986-1987.
3.
On March 13, 1986, the complainant filed a complaint with this
Commission alleging that he had been denied access to the reports by the
respondent, and that he had never received any written response to his request.
4.
Various offices of the town sent to the mayor their revenue sharing
requests to enable him to prepare a Revenue Sharing Budget in accordance with
the Charter.
Docket #FIC
86-69 page 2
5.
The respondent claimed that these revenue sharing requests were exempt
from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S., which exempts from disclosure
"preliminary drafts or notes
provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in
withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in
disclosure."
6.
1-19(c), G.S., clarifies 1-19(b)(1), G.S., providing in
relevant part that:
Notwithstanding the provisions of
subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of this section, disclosure shall be required
of (1) interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory opinions,
recommendations or any report comprising part of the process by which
governmental decisions and policies are formulated...."
7.
It is found that the requests for revenue sharing funds which have been
submitted to the mayor are recommendations or reports comprising part of the
process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated; and that,
therefore, the records sought by the complainant are subject to disclosure
under 1-19(a), G.S.
8.
The failure of the respondent to respond to the request of the
complainant in writing in four business days is not found here to be a
violation of the act, but rather to trigger the right of the complainant to
file his complaint with the Commission in the absence of a written denial by
the respondent, see 1-21i(a), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall provide the complainant with the records requested, described
at paragraph 2 herein.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of April 23, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission