FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Richard A. Prescott,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 94-96

Woodbridge Administrative Officer,

Respondent January 11, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 7, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing, and pursuant to the provisions of 1-21j-28, G.S., the trash haulers, whose customer lists are at issue were granted intervenor status. On October 6, 1994, the hearing was re-opened to allow the testimony and cross-examination of the intervenors.

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 dated March 25, 1994 and filed with the Commission on March 28, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to inspect, or to copy the customer lists of trash haulers in the Town of Woodbridge (hereinafter "customer lists").

3. It is found that the complainant requested access to the customer lists by letter dated March 2, 1994.

4. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request by letter dated March 16, 1994.

5. It is found that the customer lists are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

Docket #FIC 94-96 Page 2

6. However, 1-19(b)(5), G.S., allows for the discretionary nondisclosure of "commercial or financial information given in confidence, not required by statute."

7. It is found that the customer lists fall within the exemption at 1-19(b)(5), G.S., because the lists are commercial information given in confidence, not required by statute.

8. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of 1-19(a), G.S. when it failed to provide the complainant with access to the customer lists.

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 regular meeting of January 11, 1995.

Debra L. Rembowski

Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 94-96 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:

RICHARD A. PRESCOTT

57 Hallsey Lane

Woodbridge, CT 06525

WOODBRIDGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

c/o Alice S. Miskimin, Esq.

Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt & Dow

350 Orange Street

P.O. Box 606

New Haven, CT 06503

Debra L. Rembowski

Clerk of the Commission