FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

David H. Parkins,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-332

 

Executive Director, Valley Regional Planning Agency,

 

                        Respondent                  May 11, 1994

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 18, 1994, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on December 13, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying the complainant's November 29, 1993 request for copies of records.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated November 29, 1993, the complainant requested of the respondent copies of the following:

 

            a.         The Valley Regional Planning Agency ("VRPA") budget;

            b.         The VRPA charter and/or mission statement, which explains the operational guidelines and authority of the VRPA;

            c.         A list of past grants and appropriations from state and local sources involving the city of Shelton, through VRPA, since Shelton's membership began;

            d.         A list of projects currently under consideration, in progress, or awaiting grant approval involving the city of Shelton, through VRPA; and,

            e.         An organizational chart outlining the staff of the VRPA and their responsibilities.

 

            4.  The records identified in paragraph 3a - e, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            5.         It is found that by letter dated December 2, 1993, the

 

Docket #FIC 93-332                           Page 2

 

respondent indicated that he would present the complainant's request to his agency board when it was scheduled to meet on that evening.

 

            6.  It is found that the complainant finally received the requested records during the first week of January, 1994, five weeks after his initial request.

 

            7.  It is found that one year prior to the complainant's request, the mayor made an almost identical request for records, which request was fulfilled by the respondent.

 

            8.  By motion filed with this Commission on February 10, 1994, the respondent requested that this Commission levy civil penalties against the complainant pursuant to the provisions of 1-21i(b), G.S., for filing a frivolous appeal to this Commission without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent.  The basis for his motion was that as a member of the Shelton board of aldermen, the complainant knew or should have known that the mayor and other city departments already had this information, and that as a director of the city of Shelton, the complainant was the "custodian" of the requested records.

 

            9.  This Commission rejects the respondent's baseless argument that by virtue of his status as an alderman the complainant is converted into a "custodian of the records."

 

            10.  It is found that the complainant's purpose in seeking the records at issue was so that the board of alderman could review whether to withdraw as a participant from the respondent's agency.

 

            11.  It is accordingly concluded that the complainant's appeal to this Commission was not frivolous, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent within the meaning of 1-21i(b), G.S.

 

            12.  This Commission also notes that the mere fact that other local agencies may have copies of public records in the possession of the respondent does not exempt the respondent from the provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.

 

            13.  It is concluded that under the circumstances of this case the respondent's delay was a violation of that section of 1-15(a), G.S., requiring that the complainant receive copies of public records "promptly upon request."

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

Docket #FIC 93-332                           Page 3

 

            1.  Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 93-332                           Page 4

 

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:

David H. Parkins

c/o Fred J. Anthony, Esq.

P.O. Box 166

Shelton, CT 06484

 

Executive Director, Valley Regional PLanning Agency

Main Street, Railroad Station

Derby, CT 06418

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission