Freedom
of Information Commission
of
the State of Connecticut
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final
Decision
Charles H. Sienkiewicz and Bi-Tech, Inc.,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 1995-328
Fred J. Menditto, New Britain Tax Collector,
and Seth Feigenbaum, Assistant City Attorney,
City of New Britain, Office of Corporation Counsel,
Respondents August
28, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 5, 1996, 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. It is found that on September 21, 1995, the
complainants requested that the respondent tax collector provide them with
access to inspect and/or copy records containing motor vehicle registration and
birth date information.
3. It is found that on September 21, 1995, the
respondent tax collector denied the complainants’ request, stating that such
records were no longer available pursuant to a directive of the state
Department of Motor Vehicles.
4. It is further found that the respondent tax
collector consulted the respondent assistant city attorney concerning the
complainant’s request and was advised not to disclose the requested records.
5. By letter dated September 25 and filed
September 29, 1995, supplemented by letter dated November 22 and filed November
28, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the
respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying them
access to inspect or copy the requested records.
6. On February 28, 1996, the respondents filed
a motion to implead the state Department of Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “DMV”),
which was denied by the undersigned hearing officer at the hearing on this
matter.
7. It is found that complainant Sienkiewicz is
a private investigator who has a contract with DMV granting him access to DMV
files, and that the complainant also sought access to the requested records
maintained by the respondent tax collector pursuant to such contract.
8. It is concluded that the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to enforce the complainant’s right of access pursuant to the
contract described in paragraph 7, above.
9. It is found that the City of New Britain’s
(hereinafter “city”) tax assessor maintains a computer list containing the
requested information pertaining to all individuals in the city who have motor
vehicles registered with DMV and that such list is provided to him by the DMV
on computer disk or tape; and it is further found that the assessor provides
such list to the respondent tax collector for the purpose of collecting
personal property taxes.
10. It is found that the requested list
maintained by the respondent tax collector is a public record within the
meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
11. The respondents claim that the requested
list is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §14-10, G.S., and a related
June 16, 1995 letter that the respondent tax collector received from the DMV
division one chief (hereinafter “the letter”).
12. The complainants maintain that §14-10, G.S., only applies to
records in the custody of the DMV and does not apply to records maintained by
the respondents and that the respondents grossly misinterpreted the letter from
DMV.
13. Section 14-10, G.S., provides, in relevant
part:
(b)(1) All records of the motor vehicle
department pertaining to the application for registration, and the
registration, of motor vehicles of the current or previous three years shall be
open to public inspection at the main office of the commissioner during office
hours, in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. Any such records over three years old may be
destroyed in the discretion of the commissioner. (2) Before disclosing the name, address or registration number of
an applicant or registrant from such records or allowing the inspection of any
such record containing such a name, address or number, the commissioner shall
require the person or entity making the request to (A) complete an application
which shall be on a form prescribed by the commissioner and include the
person’s full name and residential address, (B) provide two forms of acceptable
identification and (C) pay a fee of fifteen dollars to the commissioner. …The commissioner shall mail a notice of
such application to the applicant or registrant who is the subject of the
request. The notice shall contain the
name and address of the person making the request. The commissioner shall make such disclosure or permit such
inspection at least seven days after the date of receipt of the completed application,
identification and fee. The provisions
of this subdivision shall not apply to a federal, state or local agency,
including any court or law enforcement agency in carrying out its functions, or
a private person or entity acting on behalf of a federal, state or local agency
in carrying out its functions. …
(e) The provisions of this section shall not
apply to registration, license information or driver history furnished pursuant
to a contract entered into by the commissioner with any person, firm, labor
union or nonprofit organization who satisfies the commissioner that the
information is properly required in connection with the conduct of such
entity’s business or activity.
[Emphasis added.]
14. It is concluded that §14-10, G.S., only applies to
records maintained by the DMV and does not apply to records maintained by the
respondent tax collector.
15. The letter described in paragraph 11, above,
from the DMV division one chief reads as follows:
“Any requests for
registration and/or title information from any individual or business employed
by a tax collector is subject to all rules and policies of the Disclosure Act [§14-10, G.S.].
If the tax collector
directly requests the information the disclosure requirements will be waived
and the information will be given directly to the TAX COLLECTOR ONLY.”
16. It is concluded that the letter described in
paragraphs 11 and 15, above, neither supersedes nor states an exemption to the
disclosure requirements of the FOI Act.
17. The respondents also claim that the birth
dates contained within the requested list are exempt from disclosure pursuant
to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
18. Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the
nondisclosure of “personnel or medical and similar files the disclosure of
which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”
19. It is found that the requested list is not a
personnel, medical or similar file within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S., and it is
therefore concluded that the requested list is not exempt from disclosure pursuant
to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
20. It is therefore concluded that by failing to
provide the complainants with access to inspect or copy the requested list, the
respondents violated §1-19(a), G.S.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall immediately provide
the complainants with access to inspect the requested list, and provide them
with any requested copies of such list free of charge.
2. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly
comply with the requirements of §1-19(a), G.S.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
August 28, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
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:
Charles
H. Sienkiewicz and BiTech, Inc.
P.O.
Box 883
Rocky
Hill, CT 06067
Fred J. Menditto, New Britain Tax Collector, and
Seth Feigenbaum, Assistant City Attorney, City of New Britain, Office of
Corporation Counsel,
c/o Irena J. Urbaiak, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
City of New Britain
27 West Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission