FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Paul F. Miller,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-393
Office of the First
Selectman and Office of the Second Selectman of the Town of Easton,
Respondents September
13, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on November 14, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondent first
selectman 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning
of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letters dated September 12, 1988 and September 17,
1988, the complainant requested of the respondent first selectman copies of
itemized bills for legal services provided to the town of Easton by the firm of
Durant, Sabanosh, Nichols & Houston (the "law firm") for the
months of July and August, 1988, regarding the lawsuit by the town of Easton
and the Easton Police Department against Clarence E. Jennings, Jr., Clarence E.
Jennings III, Stephen J. Link and Trent T. Link (the "lawsuit").
3. On September 19, 1988 the respondent first selectman
replied to the complainant that the requested bills were not yet available.
4. By letter of complaint dated September 23, 1988 and
received by the Commission on September 26, 1988, the complainant appealed to
the Commission, alleging that the respondents had denied his requests.
5. By letters dated September 23, 1988, the complainant
addressed his request to the treasurer and comptroller of the town of Easton.
6. By letters dated September 28, 1988, the treasurer and
comptroller replied to the complainant that the town had instructed the law
firm to bill the town on a quarterly basis, and that the bill for the months of
July and August, 1988 had not yet been submitted to the town.
7. It is found that the complainant failed to prove that
he had addressed his request to the respondent second selectman.
8. It is found that the respondent first selectman
requested quarterly billings by the law firm in July or August of 1988.
9. It is found that some information regarding the law
firm's estimate for litigation fees regarding the lawsuit was provided to the
first selectman on or before the September 20, 1988 regular meeting of the
Easton Board of Finance.
10. It is also found, however, that the respondent first
selectman had not received an actual bill from the law firm for the quarter
ending September 30, 1988 as of the date of the hearing on this matter.
11. It is also found that the town comptroller had
neither received nor paid the requested bills as of the date of the hearing on
this matter.
12. It is found that the requested itemized bills, when
received by the town, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
13. It is also found that the complainant seeks only the
amounts of the July and August 1988 bills, and not any information exempt from
disclosure pursuant to §§1-19(b)(4) or 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
14. The respondent first selectman maintains that the
subject bills have not yet been received by the town because of delays caused
by the first selectman's requests for quarterly billing and for more specific
identification by the law firm of the particular matters to which the law
firm's work pertained.
15. The complainant maintains that previous bills
submitted to the town by the law firm for the months of May and June, 1988, are
sufficiently detailed to identify the particular matters to which the law
firm's work pertained.
16. It is found that, based on the edited versions of the
May and June, 1988 bills made exhibits in this matter, it is not possible to
determine whether the unedited May and June, 1988 bills are sufficiently
detailed to identify the particular matters to which the law firm's work
pertained.
17. The Commission takes administrative notice that,
barring any additional and extraordinary difficulties in providing the
itemization and quarterly billing referenced in paragraph 14, above, the
requested bills should have been received by the town by the date of the final
decision in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent first selectman shall forthwith provide
the complainant with a copy of the requested record or, within two weeks of the
issuance of the Final Decision in this matter, provide the complainant and the
Commission with an affidavit stating that he has conducted a thorough search of
his records, and that the record requested by the complainant has not been
received by the town of Easton.
2. The complaint is dismissed as to the respondent second
selectman.
PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
PAUL F. MILLER
c/o Andrew Bowman, Esquire
1804 Post Road East
Westport, CT 06880
OFFICE OF THE FIRST
SELECTMAN AND OFFICE OF THE SECOND SELECTMAN OF THE TOWN OF EASTON
c/o Theodore H. Meyer
Easton First Selectman
Town Hall
225 Center Road
Easton, CT 06612
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of September 13, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission