FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

Christopher Hoffman and The New

Haven Register,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1995-365

 

Leon J. O’Connor, Director of Health,

Naugatuck Valley Health District;

Rosalie Averill, Chairman, Naugatuck

Valley Health District Board of Directors;

Thomas P. Clifford, III; Suzanne Abdalla;

Maureen Monaco; Keith McLiverty; Helen

Magnamo; Diane Sullivan; Mary Boland;

Delores Nappi; Mary Casalveri; David

Beardsley; Daniel Taylor; Grace Monahan

and Naugatuck Valley Health District

Board of Directors,

 

 

                        Respondents                                                     September 11, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 23, 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.         By letter of complaint dated October 24, 1995 and filed with the Commission on October 26, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by requesting that a written request form be completed by a requester prior to providing access to inspect public records.  The complainants requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.

 

3.         At the hearing into this matter, the respondents raised the issue of the Commission’s jurisdiction to hear this complaint, contending that the Commission

Docket #FIC 1995-365                                                                                   Page  2

 

 

deviated from the requirements of Connecticut Regulations of State Agencies §1-21j-32a, G.S., by granting the complainant’s request for postponement of hearing for a purpose not permitted within such regulations.

 

4.         Connecticut Regulations of State Agencies §1-21j-13, G.S., however, provides that:

 

Where good cause appears, the [FOI] commission, or any presiding officer may permit deviation from these rules, except where precluded by statute.  [Emphasis added.]

 

5.         It is therefore concluded that pursuant to §1-21j-13, G.S., the Hearing Officer’s granting of the complainant’s request for postponement was permissible.

 

6.         It is found that on October 13, 1995 the complainant Hoffman requested that the respondent O’Connor allow him to inspect certain records concerning well water contamination; that the respondent O’Connor requested that the complainant Hoffman complete a request form prior to being given access to inspect the records; that the complainant Hoffman refused to complete the request form; that the respondent O’Connor in an attempt to comply with the complainant’s request to inspect records completed the form himself, after which the complainant Hoffman was provided with access to inspect the requested records.

 

7.         It is found that the complainants did not request from the respondent board members access to inspect records, nor is it found that the respondent board members requested that the complainants first complete a request form prior to providing the requested access.

 

8.         Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.

 

Docket #FIC 1995-365                                                                                   Page  3

 

 

Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.  [Emphases added.]

 

 

9.         It is found that the respondent O’Connor’s request that the complainant first complete a written request form prior to being allowed to inspect the requested records is an agency rule that diminishes and curtails the complainant’s right to inspect records within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S.

 

10.       It is found however, that the respondent O’Connor’s completion of the form himself, as described in paragraph 6, above, indicates his good faith effort to provide the complainant with access to the requested records.  The Commission applauds his effort.

 

11.       It is therefore, concluded that the respondent O’Connor technically violated §1-19(a), G.S., when he requested that the complainant first complete a written request form prior to being allowed to inspect the requested records.

 

12.       It is further concluded that the violation, as described in paragraph 11, above, was not without reasonable grounds.

 

13.       Accordingly, the request that the Commission impose civil penalties is denied.

 

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

 

1.         Henceforth, the respondent O’Connor shall strictly comply with the requirements of §1-19(a), G.S.

 

            2.         The complaint is dismissed as against the respondent board members.

 

3.         The Commission takes this opportunity to remind the respondent board members that although they were not the individuals to whom the complainant’s request was directed, they too, as the governing body of the Naugatuck Valley Health District must ensure that all possible measures are taken to comply with the provisions of §1-19(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 1995-365                                                                                   Page  4

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 11, 1996.

 

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission


Docket # FIC 1995-365                                                                                              Page 5

 

 

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:

 

Christopher Hoffman and The New Haven Register

40 Sargent Drive

New Haven, CT 06511

 

Leon J. O’Connor, Director of Health, Naugatuck Valley Health District; Rosalie Averill, Chairman, Naugatuck Valley Health District Board of Directors; Thomas P. Clifford, III; Suzanne Abdalla; Maureen Monaco; Keith McLiverty; Helen Magnamo; Diane Sullivan; Mary Boland; Delores Nappi; Mary Casalveri; David Beardsley; Daniel Taylor; Grace Monahan and Naugatuck Valley Health District Board of Directors,

c/o       Alan J. Tyma, Esq.

            23 Coran Avenue

            Shelton, CT 06584

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission