FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Dwayne Braithwaite,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 88‑212
Mayor William W. Dickinson,
Jr., and Town of Wallingford,
Respondents December
20, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on September 2, 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 May 9, 1988, the complainant requested the respondent mayor provide him
with:
a. all the bills, paid or unpaid, from the
attorneys who worked on the case of Planning and Zoning Commission vs.
Zoning Board of Appeals, including all such bills from Attorneys Thomas O.
Terrace and Anthony J. Elia, Jr., and
b. all documents in the case of Masonic
Charity Foundation v. Town of Wallingford, also known as the Ashlar Village
case.
3. By letter
dated May 11, 1988, the respondent mayor informed the complainant that the town
attorney would contact him to advise him as to when the records would be
available.
4. By letter
dated June 6, 1988, and filed with the Commission on June 8, 1988, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging the denial of his request and
requesting a civil penalty be imposed against the respondents.
5. The
respondents claim that the matter was referred to the town attorney since the
records were in the town attorney's
Docket #FIC 88‑212 Page
Two
office, but that that office
had no secretary, and only three part‑time lawyers, for several
months. The respondents also claim that
the town attorney tried to schedule an appointment for the complainant to
review the requested records at a mutually convenient time.
6. It is found
that the complainant addressed his request for records to the respondent mayor
because he believed that the documents might be voluminous and located in
several town offices.
7. Indeed, it is
found that at the time of the request some of the requested records were
available only in the town comptroller's office.
8. It is further
found that the respondents failed to prove that all the records described in
paragraph 2b, above, were in legal files in the town attorney's office and that
no other documents, such as correspondence to the respondent mayor, exist.
9. It is found
that on May 17, 1988, the complainant was called to schedule an appointment to
review the requested records, requiring that the review take place in the
respondent mayor's office.
10. It is found
that the complainant agreed to review the records at 9 a.m. on May 20, 1988,
provided that all the records would be in the respondent mayor's office at that
time.
11. It is found
that when the complainant arrived at the respondent mayor's office at the
appointed time, the records were not there.
12. It is found
that the complainant then asked to see the respondent mayor and the respondent
mayor's assistant told him that he was in a meeting.
13. It is found
that next the town attorney, via the telephone, offered to schedule another
appointment for the complainant to review the records at a time when the town
attorney could be present. The
complainant declined the offer.
14. It is found
that also on May 20, 1988, the town attorney sent the complainant a letter
explaining the conditions under which the complainant could review the
requested records.
15. It is found
that all the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1‑18a(d)
and 1‑19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 88‑212 Page
Three
16. It is found
that the respondents make no claim that any of the requested records are exempt
from disclosure.
17. It is found
that the lack of a secretary in the respondent town's legal office does not
excuse the respondents from their responsibilities under the Freedom of
Information Act.
18. It is
concluded that the respondents' requirement of a scheduled appointment and the
presence of one particular town officer impeded the complainant's "right
to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours,"
in violation of §1‑19(a), G.S.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §1‑19(a),
G.S., providing all persons access to public records promptly during regular
business hours.
2. The
respondents shall, at the complainant's earliest convenience, provide him
access to all the records described in paragraph 2, above, both those located
in the town attorney's office and those located in other town offices.
3. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty upon the respondents.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of December 20, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission