FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Francis S. Rotella,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-163
City Manager, City of Meriden,
Respondent December 13, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 26, 1989, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated April 20, 1989, the respondent notified the complainant that the complainant's claim to be treated as an indigent individual for purposes of 1-15, G.S. had been reviewed, and that the respondent had accordingly determined that the complainant did not qualify as indigent for purposes of 1-15, G.S. based upon the complainant's receipt of income from social security and the State of Connecticut.
3. Between April 20, 1989 and May 10, 1989, the complainant was denied at least one document free of charge by the respondent.
4. By letter of complaint dated and filed with this Commission on May 10, 1989, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated 1-15, G.S. by requiring him to pay for copies of public records.
5. It is found that prior to April 20, 1989, the respondent honored the complainant's request to be treated as an indigent individual under the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act and provided him with copies of public documents free of charge.
6. The respondent claims that it should not be precluded from re-examining the indigency of the complainant using subsequently-developed objective standards.
Docket #FIC 89-163 Page 2
7. It is found that the respondent analyzed the complainant's monthly income including amounts received from social security and the state of Connecticut as well as several other factors including but not limited to the complainant's costs for housing and utilities, telephone service and cable television subscription.
8. It is found that the respondent recently developed this analysis because the complainant was the first individual to petition for indigency status from the respondent.
9. It is found that the respondent intends to utilize the same factors and criteria used in the present case should future requests for indigency status under 1-15 G.S., be made to the respondent.
10. It is concluded that in the present case the Commission should not interfere either with the procedures the respondent has developed to determine indigency or their application under the facts of this case.
11. It is concluded that the respondent has acted in accordance with the provisions of 1-15, G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 1989.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-163 Page 3
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
FRANCIS S. ROTELLA
55 Willow Street
South Tower Apt. 304-S
Meriden, CT 06450
CITY MANAGER, CITY OF MERIDEN
c/o Alfred L. Fordiani, Jr., Esquire
Department of Law
142 East Main Street
Meriden, CT 06450
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission