FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Diane Reed
Sanford Anjone,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 88-130
Mary Anne
Guitar, First Selectman of the Town of Redding,
Respondent August 24, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on July 18, 1988, at which time the complainant and the
respondent 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
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. The
complainant is the executrix of an estate which owns property in Redding, upon
which property the complainant resides.
3. In
a suit brought against the complainant, the Redding town sanitarian, Roy
Bradshaw, sought to force the complainant to disconnect the septic system from
her residence and refrain from using its plumbing and sanitary facilities.
4. The
suit by the town sanitarian was dismissed on January 4, 1988.
5. During
the pendency of the suit, Attorney Edwin C. Pearson, who represented the town
sanitarian, sent a letter to Mr. Bradshaw advising him of his rights and
responsibilities with respect to the complainant's septic system and inspection
of the complainant's property.
6. On
or about March 9, 1988 the complainant, through counsel, made a written request
of the respondent to inspect the letter from Attorney Pearson to Mr. Bradshaw.
7. The
respondent denied the complainant's request.
Docket #FIC
88-130 Page Two
8. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 12, 1988 the complainant
appealed the respondent's failure to provide access to inspect the requested
letter. The complainant requested that
the Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondent and award costs of
the action.
9. At
hearing, the respondent moved to quash a subpoena issued by the complainant's
counsel, which motion was denied.
10. It
is found that the letter from Attorney Pearson to the town sanitarian is a
public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
11. The
respondent claims that the letter from Attorney Pearson to the town sanitarian
is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(10), G.S. as a communication
privileged by the attorney-client relationship.
12. It
is found that the respondent failed to prove that the letter in question
constitutes or contains communications made in confidence and privileged by the
attorney-client privilege.
13. It
is concluded that the letter in question is not exempt from disclosure pursuant
to 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
14. The
respondent failed to prove that the letter in question is exempted from
disclosure by any other provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other
state statute or federal law.
15. It
is, therefore, concluded that the respondent's failure to provide the
complainant with access to inspect the letter in question violated
1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
16. The
Commission, however, declines to impose a civil penalty, as requested by the
complainant.
17. The
Commission notes that there is neither statutory nor regulatory authority for
the awarding of costs of the proceeding, as requested by the complainant.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
Docket #FIC
88-130 Page
Three
1. The
respondent forthwith shall provide the complainant with access to inspect the
letter from Attorney Pearson to the town sanitarian, referred to in paragraph 5
of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of August 24, 1988.
ÿ
Catherine H.
Lynch
Acting Clerk
of the Commission