FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In The Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Lorraine Tirella,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1996-060

Parks and Recreation Commission,

Town of Oxford and Town of Oxford,

Respondents August 14, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 6, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G. S.

2. By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on February 23, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her prompt access to park and recreation correspondence on February 21, 1996.

3. It is found that park and recreation correspondence are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

4. It is found that on February 21, 1996, the complainant went to town hall where she requested of the secretary to the Board of Selectmen of the respondent town access to park and recreation correspondence.

5. It is also found that on February 21, 1996, the secretary of the Board of Selectmen of the respondent town told the complainant that she could not view the correspondence at that time.

6. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part: “…every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours…”

7. It is found that the respondent park and recreation commission instituted a policy whereby its clerk reviews the mail then separates the bills from the correspondence and copies the correspondence to forward it to the commissioners so they receive the correspondence at the same time

8. The respondent park and recreation commission claims that the above-referenced procedure is necessary in order to prevent the loss of correspondence and/or a crowd of over two hundred board members and commissioners arriving at town hall to view correspondence at the same time.

9. It is concluded that the defense outlined in paragraph 8, above, is hypothetical and without factual basis in the record of this case.

10. The Commission also notes that under the facts of this case there is no evidence to indicate that the incoming mail to the respondent park and recreation commission contains confidential or exempt documents.

11. It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondents failed to provide to the complainant prompt access to public records within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S., and it is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the terms of that provision.

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

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

2. Within thirty days of the mailing of the notice of the final decision in this case, the respondents shall contact the Commission’s offices to arrange for a workshop to be conducted concerning the provisions of the FOI Act.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 14, 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:

Lorraine Tirella

11 Larkey Road

Oxford, CT 06478

Parks and Recreation Commission

Town of Oxford and Town of Oxford

486 Oxford Road

Oxford, CT 06478

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1996-060FD