FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Wil Sormrude,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 88-215
Town of Ledyard
Zoning Board of Appeals,
Respondent October 26, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on July 28, 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. On
or about March 12, 1987 the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection ("DEP") issued the Town of Ledyard an administrative
order, HM-406, concerning the former Ledyard town garage. The DEP's order required the town to dispose
of certain toxic and hazardous wastes and contained a schedule for the
performance of the project, the stages of which were identified by the letters
A through G.
3. On
April 20, 1988 the respondent held a public hearing on a petition by the
complainant for a variance concerning property adjacent to the site of the
former Ledyard town garage. At a May
18, 1988 meeting the respondent voted to deny the complainant's petition.
4. The
respondent notified the complainant of its denial by letter dated May 21, 1988
and, on May 26, 1988, published a notice of such denial in the local newspaper.
5. By
letter dated May 25, 1988 the complainant made a request of the respondent for
certain records relating to his petition and the denial thereof, including all
correspondence to and from the DEP regarding pollution at the former town
garage site.
Docket #FIC
88-215 Page Two
6. On
June 7, 1988 the complainant telephoned the respondent's secretary, Margaret
Tipple, to check on the progress of his request. Ms. Tipple stated that she had not yet read his letter of request
and would call him back the next day to discuss it, but did not do so.
7. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on June 10, 1988 the complainant
appealed the respondent's failure to provide the requested records. The complainant stated in his letter his
fear that his inability to obtain the records would affect his ability to
appeal the respondent's denial of his petition.
8. The
complainant received most of the requested records on June 10, 1988, including
records relating to part A of the schedule established in the DEP's March 12,
1987 order.
9. In
a supplemental letter filed with the Commission on July 20, 1988 the
complainant asked that the respondent's May 18, 1988 action be declared null
and void, that the respondent be ordered to produce records relating to items B
through G of the DEP's order, that a civil penalty be imposed against the
respondent and that the respondent and its secretary be required to attend a
Freedom of Information Act workshop.
10. The
complainant claims that pursuant to 8-6, G.S. he had only 15 days from the
publication of notice of the denial in which to appeal the respondent's action,
that due to the delay in releasing the requested records he was unable to file
a timely appeal, and that an order declaring the respondent's action null and
void is therefore appropriate.
11. It
is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with all records in
its files relating to the DEP's order and to the complainant's variance
petition and the denial thereof.
12. The
respondent claims that the delay in responding to the complainant's request for
records was caused by Ms. Tipple's absence while on vacation. Ms. Tipple left the office on May 25, 1988
and returned on June 6, 1988.
13. The
respondent further claims that because the complainant could have filed an
appeal of the respondent's decision without the requested records and because
he never notified the respondent of the urgency of his request, an order
declaring its decision null and void is inappropriate.
14. It
is found that Ms. Tipple's inability to respond to the complainant's request
due to her absence did not excuse the respondent from its responsibilities
under the Freedom of Information Act.
Docket #FIC
88-215 Page
Three
15. It
is further found that the respondent's failure to provide the complainant with
the requested records until June 10, 1988 denied the complainant prompt access
to such records, in violation of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
16. It
is found, however, that the respondent's failure to provide the requested
records in a timely manner did not preclude the complainant from preserving his
rights to appeal the respondent's decision.
The Commission, therefore, declines to declare null and void the
respondent's May 18, 1988 decision, as requested by the complainant.
17. The
Commission also declines to impose a civil penalty or require the attendance of
the respondent or its secretary at a Freedom of Information Act workshop.
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 1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S. regarding prompt access to public records.
2. The
respondent forthwith shall designate one of its members, or some other employee
of the Town of Ledyard, to be responsible for reviewing and responding to
requests for public records during its secretary's absences.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of October 26, 1988.
ÿ
Catherine H.
Lynch
Acting Clerk of the Commission