FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                FINAL DECISION

 

Cindy Ouellette,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-269

 

Raymond O’Connell, Jr., Chief, Yantic Fire

Department, Joseph W. Winski, Sr., Chief,

East Great Plain Fire Department; Steven Caisse,

Chief, Taftville Fire Department; Kevin McKeon, Chief,

Occum Fire Department; Philip Johnson, Chief, Laurel

Hill Fire Department,

 

                        Respondents                                                     December 11, 1996

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 15, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondent fire departments appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The respondent city manager failed to appear.  The caption of the case was corrected to reflect that Joseph W. Winski, Sr. is the fire chief of the East Great Plain Fire Department and Kevin McKeon is the fire chief of the Occum Fire Department.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  By letter of complaint dated and filed on September 9, 1996, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the Commission’s order in contested case docket #FIC 94-24, Cindy Ouellette and Taxpayers Association of Norwich v. Norwich City Manager, Yantic Volunteer Fire Co., East Great Plain Volunteer Fire Co., Taftville Volunteer Fire Co., Occum Volunteer Fire Co. and Laurel Hill Volunteer Fire Co., (hereinafter “FIC 94-24”), aff’d, Yantic Volunteer Fire Co. et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission, Conn. Sup. Ct., No. CV94-0106511, Oct. 1995 (Martin J.), aff’d, Yantic Volunteer Fire Co. et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 220 Conn. App. 519 (1996).  The complainant requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.

 

 

Docket #FIC 1996-269                                                                                   Page 2

 

 

2.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and decisions in FIC 94-24, Yantic Volunteer Fire Co. et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission, Conn. Sup. Ct., No. CV94-0106511, Oct. 1995 (Martin J.) and Yantic Volunteer Fire Co. et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission, 220 Conn. App. 519 (1996), concluding that the respondent fire departments are the functional equivalent of public agencies as defined at §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

3.  In FIC 94-24, the Commission ordered that the respondent fire companies immediately disclose to the complainants their charters, by-laws, policies and procedures and the names and addresses of their current active members (hereinafter “requested records”), and that the respondent city manager disclose to the complainants the requested records being maintained in the city’s personnel department.

 

4.  The respondent fire departments, but not the respondent city manager, appealed FIC 94-24 to the superior and appellate courts.

 

5.  The appellate court’s decision in Yantic Volunteer Fire Co. et al., supra, was issued on August 13, 1996 and the respondent fire departments did not petition the Supreme Court for certification to appeal.

 

6.  The respondent fire departments nonetheless, contend that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the provisions of 1996 Conn. Acts 96-83 (Reg. Sess.) (hereinafter “Pub. Act No. 96-83”).

 

7.  It is found that the respondents failed to prove that Pub. Act No. 96-83 has any retroactive effect.

 

8.  It is concluded that the issue of whether the requested records were exempt from disclosure at all times material to FIC 94-24 is a controversy that has been authoritatively and finally settled by a decision of the appellate court.

 

                9.  The commission therefore, here addresses the respondent fire departments’ claim regarding Pub. Act No. 96-83 only with respect to the reasonableness of the respondents failure to comply with the commission’s order in FIC 94-24.

 

10.  Section 1 of Pub. Act No. 96-83, allows a state department, agency, board, council, commission or institution, under certain circumstances, not to disclose the residential address of specific categories of employees, none of whom are the subjects of any of the requested records.

 

 

Docket #FIC 1996-269                                                                                   Page 3

 

            11.  Section 2 of Pub. Act No. 96-83, exempts from disclosure the records and meetings of a volunteer fire department “if such records concern fraternal or social

matters”, however, disclosure is mandatory of “records and meetings concerning matters of public safety, expenditures of public funds or other public business.”

 

            12.  It is concluded that nothing in the language of Pub. Act 96-83 now  precludes disclosure of  records similar to those requested by the  complainant.

 

            13.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondents failed to prove that records similar to the requested records would now be exempt from disclosure pursuant to Pub. Act No. 96-83.

 

                14.  It is found that besides their general claim that Pub. Act No. 96-83 precludes disclosure of the requested records, the respondent fire departments have not provided any evidence to excuse their failure to comply with the commission’s order in FIC 94-24.

 

            15.  It is concluded that the respondents failed to comply with the Commission’s order in FIC 94-24.

 

16.  It is found that the violation described in paragraph 15, above, was without reasonable grounds.

 

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

 

1.  The respondents shall forthwith each remit to the Commission a civil penalty in the amount of $750.00.

 

2.  The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the requested records.

 

3.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of the FOI Act.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 11, 1996.

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 1996-269                                                                                              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:

 

Cindy Ouellette

153 West Thames Street

Norwich, CT 06360

 

 

Raymond O’Connell, Jr., Chief, Yantic Fire Department, Joseph W. Winski, Sr., Chief,

East Great Plain Fire Department; Steven Caisse, Chief, Taftville Fire Department; Kevin McKeon, Chief, Occum Fire Department; Philip Johnson, Chief, Laurel Hill Fire Department

c/o  John A. Cotter, Esq.

223 West Town Street

Norwich, CT 06360

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC 1996-269/FD/eal/121696