FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Karen Martin,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-381

 

Somers Zoning Commission,

 

                                Respondent                          June 12, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 11, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter of complaint dated October 24, 1995 and filed with the Commission on October 25, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by:

 

                                a.             failing to timely answer her FOI request, for a document the respondent discussed at its October 16, 1995 meeting (hereinafter "requested record");

 

                                b.             denying Sally Roche access to the requested record on October 16, 1995; and

 

                                c.             passing out the requested record at its October 16, 1995 meeting.

 

                3.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on October 16, 1995 (hereinafter "the meeting").

 

                4.  It is found that during the meeting, the chairman of the respondent handed out the requested record to the members of the respondent.

 

                5.  It is found that the requested record is an ethics complaint against the respondent's chairman which was filed with the Somers town clerk's (hereinafter "town clerk") office on October 6, 1995.

 

Docket #FIC 95-381                                             Page 2

 

                6.  With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that on October 17, 1995, the complainant visited the town clerk's office and requested in writing that the respondent provide her with access to a copy of "the document handed out" at the meeting.

 

                7.  It is found that "the document handed out" at the meeting is the ethics complaint, as described in paragraph 5, above.

 

                8.  It is found that the town clerk does not maintain the requested record and at the time of the complainant's visit on October 17, 1995 told the complainant that she would forward the request to the respondent.

 

                9.  It is found that the town clerk on October 17, 1995 mailed the request to the home of the respondent's chairman.

 

                10.  It is found that the respondent's chairman received the request on Friday October 20, 1995.

 

                11.  It is found that the respondent's chairman called the town planner sometime between October 23 and 25, 1995 and told her to provide the complainant with the requested record.

 

                12.  It is found that the town planner by letter dated October 25, 1995 informed the complainant that the requested record was being made available and that upon remittance of a copy charge of $2.00 the requested record would be sent to her.

 

                13.  It is found that the October 25, 1995 letter, described in paragraph 12, above, was received by the complainant on or about October 27, 1995.

 

                14.  It is found that the complainant visited the respondent's office on November 1, 1995 and at that time paid the $2.00 copy charge and received a copy of the requested record.

 

                15.  It is found that the respondent maintains an office in the building where the town clerk's office is located and that the town planner assists with the operation of such office as there is no full-time staff in the respondent's office.

 

                16.  It is found that the complainant delivered her request to the town clerk's office believing in good faith that the town clerk maintained the requested record.

 

                17.  It is found that while the town clerk maintains copies of the respondent's agendas and minutes, the respondent's records are maintained in its own office and therefore the request should have been directed to the respondent's office.

 

Docket #FIC 95-381                                             Page 3

 

                18.  It is found that although the request was delivered to the town clerk's office on October 17, 1995, the respondent who maintains the requested record did not receive such request until October 20, 1995, and therefore the respondent's response letter of October 25, 1995 is within four business days of the receipt of the request.

 

                19.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., as its response was timely.

 

                20.  It is also concluded that the respondent's request for a prepayment of the copy charge of $2.00, as described in paragraph 12, above, violates 1-15(c), G.S., which permits prepayments of $10.00 or more.

 

                21.  With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2b., above, section 1-21i(b)(i), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                                                any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under 1-19 .... may appeal therefrom to the freedom of information commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.

 

                22.  It is found that Sally Roche has not filed a notice of appeal with the Commission, and therefore the Commission lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 1-21i(b)(i), G.S., to address the allegation as set forth in paragraph 2b., above.

 

                23.  With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2c., above, it is found that the complainant has not alleged an act which constitutes a violation of the FOI Act.

 

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

 

                1.  With respect to the prepayment request for a copy charge of $2.00, henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15(c), G.S.

 

                2.  The remainder of the complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 12, 1996.

 

                                                                                             

                                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-381                                             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:

Karen Martin

P.O. Box 598

Somers, CT 06071

 

Somers Zoning Commission

c/o Thomas W. Fahey, Jr., Esq.

Fahey, Landolina & Roznoy

487 Spring Street, Suite 2

Windsor Locks, CT 06096

 

                                                                                             

                                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission