FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Horace W.
Boynton,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 87-214
First Selectman
of the Town of Westport,
Respondent September 9, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on August 21, 1987, 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:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated July 9, 1987, the complainant requested copies of all
draft proposals prepared by the State Department of Transportation (hereinafter
"DOT"), or the Town of Westport concerning the state transfer of the
Bridge Street Bridge and adjacent portions of Route 136 to the Town of
Westport.
3.
On July 22, 1987, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of
the final proposed agreement between the Town of Westport and the DOT, dated
March 1987, but refused to release any prior draft proposals.
4.
By letter of complaint dated July 28, 1987 and filed with the Commission
on July 30, 1987, the complainant alleged the respondent violated the Freedom
of Information Act in her failure to release the draft proposals.
5.
The respondent claims the draft proposals differ substantially from the
final proposed agreement and therefore are preliminary drafts or notes, exempt
from public disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
6.
The respondent further claims the DOT maintains the records requested
and it would be more appropriate for the complainant to seek access to such
documents from the DOT.
Docket #FIC
87-214 Page 2
7.
It is found the DOT submitted a typed draft proposal to the respondent
in November 1986, which the respondent sent back to DOT, with suggested
revisions.
8.
It also is found the DOT submitted a revised typed draft proposal to the
respondent in February 1987, which the respondent likewise sent back to DOT,
with suggested revisions.
9.
It further is found the draft proposals comprised the terms of an
unapproved contractual agreement between the DOT and the Town of Westport
regarding the state tranfer of the Bridge Street Bridge to the Town of
Westport.
10. It also is found the draft proposals are
public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
11.
It further is found the respondent failed to prove the draft proposals
constituted preliminary drafts or notes within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1),
G.S.
12.
It therefore is concluded the draft proposals are not exempt from public
disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
13.
It further is found that even if the draft proposals were preliminary
drafts or notes under 1-19(b)(1),G.S., they are reports that comprise part
of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated
within the meaning of 1-19(c)(1), G.S., and therefore would be subject to
diclosure under 1-19a, G.S.
14.
It further is concluded the respondent failed to prove the draft
proposals are exempt from public disclosure under any other provision of the
Freedom of Information Act, state statute or federal law.
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 copies of
the draft proposals described in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the findings, above,
before September 15, 1987.
2.
The respondent shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the
requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC
87-214 page 3
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 9, 1987.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission