FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
David M. DeFelice,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-399
Charles Tisdale, Director of
Policy and Development of the City of Bridgeport,
Respondent January
25, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on November 15, 1988, at which time the parties appeared and presented evidence
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. By
complaint filed September 29, 1988 the complainant alleged that on September
23, 1988 and on September 26, 1988, the respondent denied his oral requests to
review all files related to the work performed by Schatz and Schatz, a law firm
employed by the city of Bridgeport.
3. It is
found that on September 23, 1988, the respondent denied the complainant's oral
request to inspect files.
4. It is
further found that on September 23, 1988, the respondent told the complainant
to put his request in writing.
5. It is
found that on September 26, 1988, the respondent again denied the complainant's
request to inspect the files and told him to put the request in writing.
6. It is
found that, on September 26, 1988, the complainant filed a written request for
the records.
Docket #FIC 88-399 page
two
7. It is
found that the gravamen of the complainant's letter of complaint is his
contention that the Freedom of information Act does not require him to put his
request to inspect records in writing, and that, therefore, the respondent
violated his rights by requiring a written request to inspect and further that
the respondent did not respond to the request within the required time period.
8. The
respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because no violation had occurred in
that a written request is required by the statute and, that in any event, the
respondent respondent promptly.
9. It is
found that neither §1-15, nor §1-19(a), G.S., require a person to put a request
to inspect records in writing.
10. It is
found that the respondent placed an illegal precondition upon the complainant's
right to inspect the records when he required a written request to inspect the
files and that, in the circumstances of this case, did not respond promptly to
the complainant's request.
11. The
complainant seeks a civil penalty.
12. It is
found that under the circumstances of this complaint, a civil penalty is not
appropriate.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondent shall henceforth comply with §1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of January 25, 1989.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission