FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Town of Newtown,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-392
Office of the Governor of
the State of Connecticut and Legal Counsel for the Office of the Governor of
the State of Connecticut,
Respondents June
22, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on February 8, 1988, at which time the respondents appeared but the complainant
failed to appear. Upon motion of the
respondents, the hearing officer recommended dismissal of the complaint for
failure to prosecute. On March 9, 1988
the Commission declined to adopt the report of hearing officer and voted to
re-open the matter. The matter was
again heard as a contested case on April 28, 1988, at which time the
complainant 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:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On or
about July 31, 1987 the Commissioner of the State of Connecticut Department of
Public Works ("commissioner of public works") chose the Town of
Newtown as the site of a proposed Western Region Correction Center ("the
jail").
3. One of
the resources available to the commissioner of public works in making his
decision was a report prepared by Antinozzi Associates ("the Antinozzi
report") which concluded that the Town of Newtown was the best available
location for the proposed jail.
4. A review
of the Antinozzi report revealed several errors, such as the failure to
accurately state the acreage of the proposed site and the failure to identify
the location of the nearest state police barracks.
Docket #FIC 87-392 Page
Two
5. In an
August 27, 1987 critique, Dr. H. Rudy Ramsey concluded that the study method
used in the Antinozzi report produced a "highly unreliable" result.
6. In late
August, 1987 Jack Rosenthal, then first selectman of the complainant, appealed
to Governor O'Neill, pursuant to §3-1, G.S., concerning the selection of
Newtown as the jail site. Mr. Rosenthal
cited the alleged flaws in the Antinozzi report and asked the governor to
investigate.
7. Section
3-1, G.S. provides the governor with the power to "demand in writing from
any officer, department, board, commission, council or other agency of the
state a report on any matter relating to the official duties of such
agency."
8. The
governor asked the respondent counsel to review the issues raised, including
allegations that flaws in the Antinozzi report made it an unreliable resource.
9. In
connection with his review of the complainant's allegations, the respondent
counsel solicited comments from, among others, William H. Carbone, of the State
of Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Mr. Carbone replied to the respondent counsel's inquiry by letter
dated September 17, 1987.
10. In a
September 18, 1987 letter the respondent counsel asked Mr. Rosenthal to provide
him with a list of errors, inaccuracies or omissions in the Antinozzi report.
11. In a
September 29, 1987 letter to the respondent counsel, Mr. Rosenthal cited Dr.
Ramsey's report.
12. By letter
dated October 21, 1987 Mr. Carbone again corresponded with the respondent
counsel concerning the selection of Newtown as a jail site.
13. On
November 20, 1987 counsel for the complainant, Charles Campbell, met with the
respondent for approximately one hour.
The meeting included a presentation by a Newtown citizens' group. During such meeting Attorney Campbell, on
behalf of the complainant, made an oral request of the respondent counsel for
copies of the comments on the critiques of the Antinozzi report and any other
report pertaining to the selection of the Town of Newtown as a jail site.
14. In
response to Attorney Campbell's oral request, the respondent counsel requested
that he submit a written request, specifically identifying the requested
records.
Docket #FIC 87-392 Page
Three
15. By letter
dated November 23, 1987 Attorney Campbell made a written request of the
respondent for Mr. Carbone's comments on the Antinozzi report and for any other
comments, corrections, recommendations or information which might have a
bearing on the governor's review of the decision to build a jail in Newtown.
16. Attorney
Campbell's request was delivered to the respondents after business hours on
November 23, 1987.
17. In a
December 4, 1987 letter the respondent counsel reported to Governor O'Neill his
conclusion that the Antinozzi report was "reasonable, objective, and
totally supportable based on available data," that the decision by the
commissioner of public works was sustainable and that the proposed jail
construction project should move forward.
18. In a
statement released at 3:00 p.m. on December 4, 1987 Governor O'Neill concurred
with the respondent counsel's recommendation that the Newtown jail project move
forward.
19. Also on
December 4, 1987 the respondent counsel's office contacted Attorney Campbell
and informed him that the requested records would be available for pick-up
after 4:00 p.m. Attorney Campbell
received the records, approximately 34 pages, on the afternoon of December 4,
1987. Of such 34 pages, approximately
one-half were copies of records sent to the respondent counsel by the
complainant.
20. By letter dated December 22, 1987 and filed with the
Commission on December 24, 1987 the complainant appealed the actions of the
respondents, claiming that they had failed to comply with the complainant's
request for records within four business days, as required by §1-21i, G.S.
21. By letter
dated February 1, 1988 and filed with the Commission on February 4, 1988 the
complainant alleged that because its request for records was not immediately
granted it was denied an opportunity to submit comments concerning the records
prior to the governor's December 4, 1987 acceptance of the respondent counsel's
recommendation, and requested that such acceptance, therefore, be declared null
and void.
22. At hearing
the respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the Town of
Newtown is not a "person" within the meaning of §1-18a(c), G.S.,
which motion was denied.
Docket #FIC 87-392 Page
Four
23. The
respondent counsel claims he did not receive the complainant's request for
records until either November 27, 1987 or November 30, 1987 and that he acted
upon the request as soon as he became aware of it.
24. It is
found that the complainant's written request for records did not differ in any
meaningful way from the oral request made, on its behalf, by Attorney Campbell
on November 20, 1987.
25. It is
further found that even if the respondent counsel did not receive the
complainant's written request until November 30, 1987, he was aware of the
request as early as November 20, 1987, had the records at his disposal and
could have complied with the request immediately upon its receipt.
26. The
respondent counsel further claims that he did not wish to release records until
he had compiled all pertinent data and that one of the records released, a
memorandum to Mr. Carbone from the deputy commissioner of the department of
public works, was not even prepared prior to December 2, 1987.
27. It is
found that delaying the release of records pending the creation of the December
2, 1987 memorandum did not further any interest cognizable under the Freedom of
Information Act. It was the respondent
counsel's responsibility to provide existing records promptly upon
request. Any records produced
subsequently could thereafter have been forwarded to the complainant.
28. It is
concluded that the respondent counsel's failure to produce the requested
records until 4:00 p.m. on December 4, 1987 denied the complainant prompt
access to such records, in violation of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
29. The
complainant claims that the respondent counsel's failure to produce the records
in question promptly upon request denied it the opportunity to either rebut the
assertions of its opponents or to provide additional information prior to the
making of a decision by the governor.
30. The
complainant further claims that the relief appropriate to the violation is an
order declaring null and void the governor's acceptance of the respondent
counsel's recommendation that the Newtown jail project move forward.
31. The
respondents claim that the decision-making authority concerning the jail site
actually belongs to the commissioner of public works and that the governor's
acceptance of the respondent counsel's recommendation was, effectively, a
Docket #FIC 87-392 Page
Five
vote of confidence without
legal significance. The respondents
acknowledge, however, that as a practical matter, if the governor had requested
it, the commissioner of public works would have reviewed his decision.
32. The
respondents further claim that if the complainant were able to compile
additional information it could ask the governor for another review, pursuant
to §3-1, G.S.
33. It is
found that prior to December 4, 1987 the proposed jail site was extensively
studied and discussed. The alleged
flaws in the Antinozzi report were brought to the attention of the governor as
early as August, 1987 and there ensued an exchange of ideas and criticisms
concerning the report in which the complainant participated.
34. The
current first selectman of the complainant indicated at hearing that he has
recommended the appropriation of funds for consultants to review the documents
should the governor's December 4, 1987 statement be declared null and void.
35. It is
found, however, that the complainant has had all pertinent records in its
possession since December 4, 1987, yet has failed to come forward with new data
in opposition to the jail site. The
existence of such additional data is, at best, speculative.
36. It is
further found that on December 4, 1987 the governor was under no obligation to
await additional comments from the complainant, having satisfied himself that
the commissioner of public works had made a sound decision.
37. The
Commission, therefore, declines to declare null and void the governor's
acceptance of the respondent's recommendation concerning the Newtown jail
project.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of
§§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. concerning prompt access to public records.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of June 22, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission