FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

James Quattro,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-4

 

East Hartford Building Inspector, East Hartford Building Department,

and Director, East Hartford Inspections and Permits,

 

                        Respondents                 October 17, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 22, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This case was consolidated for hearing with docket number FIC 93-288, James Quattro against East Hartford Building Inspector, East Hartford Building Department and Director, East Hartford Inspections and Permits.

 

            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 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         By letter of complaint filed January 1, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents had imposed illegal preconditions upon his access to inspect certain records, and denied him the right to inspect or copy certain records.

 

            3.         It is found that that the complainant made requests on or about January 4, 1994 to inspect or copy certain records.

 

            4.         It is found that the respondent asked the complainant to make an appointment at a time when the respondent building inspector could be present.

 

            5.         It is found that the parties agreed on a January 7, 1994 date to inspect the respondents' records.

 

            6.         It is found that the respondents had on numerous occassions given the complainant access to their records.

 

7.     It is found that the respondents had been unable on previous dates to satisfy the complainant's demands, and that the

 

Docket #FIC 94-4                               Page 2

 

building inspector therefore asked the complainant to make an appointment on a date when the building inspector himself could be present to assist the complainant.

 

            8.         It is concluded that, under the facts of the case, it was not unreasonable for the respondents to ask the complainant to make an appointment.

 

            9.         It is also found that the complainant was not denied the right to inspect or copy any records.

 

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

 

            1.         The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of October 17, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-4                               Page 3

 

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:

JAMES QUATTRO

17 Laurel Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

EAST HARTFORD BUILDING INSPECTOR, EAST HARTFORD BUILDING DEPARTMENT and DIRECTOR, EAST HARTFORD INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS

c/o Jose R. Ramirez, Esq.

Acting Corporation Counsel

Town of East Hartford

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission