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