FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Dennis McGavran,
Merrill Gay and the Waterbury Citizen Action Group,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-297
Mayor and Board
of Aldermen of the City of Waterbury,
Respondents February 25, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on December 11, 1986, at which time the complainants and
the respondents 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:
1.
The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated October 21, 1986 the complainants made a request of the
respondents for copies of the reports submitted by the engineering firm,
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., concerning the construction of a waste-to-energy facility
in the City of Waterbury.
3.
By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on October 22, 1986 the
complainants appealed the respondents' failure to provide the requested
reports.
4.
It is found that Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., has prepared the following five
reports concerning the construction of a waste-to-energy facility in the
Waterbury area:
a. A
landscape overview which identifies problems of municipal solid waste and the
management thereof generally, with some particular application of generic
information to the City of Waterbury submitted in April 1982;
b. A
finalized report concerning an initial proposal to construct a waste-recovery
plant in Naugatuck submitted in August 1982;
Docket #FIC
86-297
Page 2
c. Two
reports submitted in 1983 concerning the construction of a waste-to-energy
facility in Waterbury (southend site); and
d. A
1986 report analyzing and listing potential sites for the construction of a
waste-to-energy facility in Waterbury.
5.
It is found that the reports identified in paragraph 4, above, are in
the possession of the respondent mayor and not the respondent board of
aldermen.
6.
It is also found that the complainants have a copy of the report
identified in paragraph 4a, above.
7.
It is found that the complainants have a copy of the report identified
in paragraph 4d, above, however, per orders of the respondent mayor, cost
estimates as well as other information have been expurgated.
8.
The respondent mayor claims that the subject documents are exempt from
mandatory disclosure as constituting a preliminary draft or note within the
meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
9.
It is found that Mr. Buckley, a nominated member of the board of
directors for the newly created Waterbury Resource Recovery Authority has
inspected all of the reports in question.
10.
It is further found that the mayor, the city engineer and Mr. Buckley
have inspected the report identified in paragraph 4d, above.
11.
It is found that at the time of the complainants' request, the reports
in question were all substantially complete in both form and content and did
not constitute preliminary drafts or notes within the meaning of
1-19(b)(1), G.S.
12.
It is concluded that the respondent mayor violated 1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S., by failing to disclose copies of the
requested
reports promptly.
13.
At the hearing, the respondents requested an in camera inspection of the
reports in question by the presiding officer.
14.
Pursuant to 1-21j-35(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State
Agencies, in camera inspections by the presiding officer are prohibited. The respondents' request was therefore
denied.
Docket #FIC
86-297
Page 3
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
The respondent mayor shall forthwith provide the complainants with
unexpurgated copies of the reports more fully described in paragraphs 4b, 4c
and 4d of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 25, 1987.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission