FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Steven D. Levine,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 88‑23
Chief, Fairfield Fire
Department; Fairfield Fire Department; and Office of Town Attorney, Town of
Fairfield,
Respondents July
13, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on April 26, 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. By letter
dated December 7, 1987, the complainant requested that the respondent chief
provide him with access to records containing information on 33 Town of
Fairfield restaurants, which the complainant listed along with their
addresses. Specifically, the
complainant sought for each establishment:
a. the total patron area,
b. total usable patron area,
c. seating and standing space,
d. total permitted occupancy,
e. date last inspected by the respondent
fire department,
f. and by whom the inspection was made.
3. By letter
dated December 14, 1987, the respondent chief in part fulfilled and in part
denied the complainant's request.
4. By letter
dated December 19, 1987, the complainant reiterated his request and, in
addition, requested access to:
Docket #FIC 88‑23 Page
Two
a. the file on the Seagrape Cafe,
b. all memos, letters and reports, both
internal and external, relating to the Seagrape Cafe and the area in which it
is located,
c. the log of the approximately 30
official visits to the Seagrape Cafe made by Captains Ackley, Alrod, Darrow,
Schulman, Gardner, Russell and Kessler,
d. logs of other official visits to the
Seagrape Cafe and visits made to other establishments before and after those
visits to the Seagrape, and reasons why these visits were made,
e. whether or not those visits were made
in response to complaints, and, if so, who made the complaints,
f. and, for all of the above records, all
references to the liquor control commission and occupancy violations.
5. By letter
dated December 19, 1987, and filed with the Commission on January 21, 1988, the
complainant appealed to the Commission.
6. At the hearing
the respondents claimed they had provided the complainant with access to all
the requested documents that the respondents chief and fire department had.
7. At the hearing
the respondents also requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon
the complainant for harassment.
8. It is found
that the complainant has received the records containing the information
described in paragraphs 2e and 4a, above, and at least some of the records
containing the information described in paragraphs 2f, 4b, c and d, above.
9. It is found
that the respondent fire department uses records of each restaurant's square
footage to determine the legal seating capacity and total occupancy of the
restaurants about which the complainant inquired.
10. It is found,
therefore, that the respondent fire department does have records containing the
information described in paragraphs 2a, b, c and d, above.
Docket #FIC 88‑23 Page
Three
11. It is further
found that the respondent fire department logs all complaints received at its
communications center, in the order they are received, and that the respondent
department's Captain Darrow receives copies of complaints on a three‑part
form.
12. It is also
found that while the general file for each restaurant does not contain records
of routine inspections, they do contain records of inspections at which major
violations were discovered.
13. In addition,
it is found that Captain Darrow keeps a record of each inspection he makes and
that other inspectors may as well.
14. Thus it is
found that the respondent does have a significant amount of records containing
the information described in paragraphs 2f, 4b, c, d, e and f, above.
15. It is
concluded that the respondent fire department violated §§1‑15 and 1‑19(a),
G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with prompt access to the records
described in paragraphs 2a, b, c and d, above, and those records described in
paragraphs 2f, 4b, c, d, e and f, above, to which the complainant has not had
access yet.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
fire department forthwith shall provide the complainant with access to the
records described in paragraphs 2a, b, c and d of the findings above.
2. The respondent
fire department forthwith shall diligently search its records and provide the
complainant with access to any records it discovers that meet the description
in paragraphs 2f, 4b, c, d, e and f of the findings above to which the
complainant has not had access yet. The
respondent fire department also shall provide the complainant with an affidavit
describing its search efforts and results within 60 days of receipt of the
notice of final decision in this case.
3. The complaint
as to the respondent chief and respondent town attorney is hereby dismissed.
Docket #FIC 88‑23 Page
Four
4. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty upon the complainant.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of July 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission