FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Eugene T. Ryan,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-313

 

Stephen J. Humes, Parks and RecreationDirector,

Hamden Department of Parks and Recreation,

 

                                Respondent                          June 26, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 27, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, 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.             It is found that by letter to the respondent dated September 5, 1995 ("September request"), the complainant requested access to five categories of documents concerning the Farmington Park Canal construction project ("canal project records"):

 

                a)             written agreements involving the Dietter property ("property");

 

                b)            costs incurred by the town to fence the property;

 

                c)             costs associated with filling the pit on the property;

 

                d)            special permit to move dirt onto the property; and

 

                e)             certifications relating to the Schultz Company's activities on the property.

 

Docket #FIC 95-313                                             Page Two

 

                3.             It is found that by letter dated September 6, 1995, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant's September request, indicated that he had already partially complied with the request, and advised him that the balance of the request was referred to the town attorney's office for review and determination.

 

                4.             By letter of complaint dated September 10, 1995, and filed with this Commission on September 13, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondent denied him access to the project records, and requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

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

 

                6.             At the hearing on this matter ("hearing"), the respondent claimed that he orally replied to the September request in its entirety when the complainant hand-delivered it to his office.

 

                7.             It is found that in response to his September request the complainant was given a copy of only one document that partially complied with paragraph 2b), of the findings, above.

 

                8.             The respondent maintains, and it is found that with respect to the canal project records identified in:

 

                a)             paragraph 2a), above, no documents exist because there have been no written contracts;

 

                b)            paragraphs 2b) and 2c), above, the only documentation that exists is a line item on an application and certification for payment;

 

                c)             paragraph 2d), above, there is no special permit in his possession, but the the town planner may possess such a document; and

 

                d)            paragraph 2e), above, no certification documents are presently in his possession, but the town's consulting engineering firm on the canal project, Fuss & O'Neill, would have any existing records.

 

Docket #FIC 95-313                                             Page Three

 

                9.             It is found that Fuss & O'Neill are under contract to the town and the canal project records generated by them are town records easily obtainable by his office.

 

                10.           At the hearing the respondent provided the complainant with copies of some canal project records obtained in October 1995 from Fuss & O'Neill.

 

                11.           It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with access to the requested canal project records, identified in paragraphs 2(b), 2(c) and 2(e), of the findings, above.

 

                12.           The Commission declines to issue a civil penalty.

 

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

 

                1.             Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                2.             The Commission observes that the respondent did not act in the best tradition of public service when he failed to a) forward the September request to the town planner or advise the complainant that the town planner might have responsive records in his files, and b) obtain all responsive records from Fuss & O'Neill's files.

 

                3.             Within seven days of the date of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this case, the respondent shall obtain from Fuss & O'Neill all canal project records responsive to the September request, and within twenty-four hours of receipt of any records, the respondent shall notify the complainant that such records are available for inspection or copying in accordance with 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 26, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-313                                             Page four

 

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:

Eugene T. Ryan

535 Brooksvale Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

 

Stephan J. Humes, Parks and Recreation Director, Hamden Department of Parks and Recreation

c/o Susan Gruen, Esq.

Assistant Town Attorney

Town of Hamden

2372 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission