FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Stuart Groten and Stuart Lane Company, Ltd.,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 95-6

Hartland Assessors,

Respondents October 25, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 10, 1995, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter dated January 7, 1995, and filed with the Commission on January 10, 1995, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act because the respondents' office was closed on December 28, 1994 and that the complainants were unable to obtain prompt access to inspect public records of the respondents either in their office or through the office of the town clerk.

3. More specifically, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated 1-19(a), G.S., by either not conforming to the established office hours for town offices or by not maintaining regular office or business hours.

4. Section 1-19(a), G.S., in material part provides:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency . . . shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours. . . . Each such agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located. . . .

Docket #FIC 95-6 Page 2

5. It is found that although the respondents' office was closed on December 28, 1994 at the time of the complainants' visit, the respondents do maintain regular office and business hours and that their public records are available for inspection by the public during such hours.

6. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., as alleged in this complaint.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

2. The Commission notes that all parties to this complaint have acted in good faith and that this complaint was brought primarily because of the confusion attendant to the fact that the respondents' office hours are not coextensive with those of the town clerk, as set forth in the Connecticut Register and Manual. To avoid such confusion in the future and to better serve the public, the Commission strongly recommends that the respondents' regular office and business hours be changed so as to be coextensive with those of the town clerk or, if that proves unfeasible, to provide access to the respondents' public records by or through the office of the town clerk during the such clerk's regular office or business hours.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1995.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 95-6 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:

Stuart Groten and Stuart Lane Company, Ltd.

p.o. Box 132

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

Hartland Assessor

c/o Thomas Morgan, Esq.

Cohn & Birnbaum, P.C.

100 Pearl Street

Hartford, CT 06103

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission