FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Nelson P. Kari,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-61
Chairman,
Wallingford Town Council Committee to Investigate Purchasing Practices of the
Board of Education,
Respondent January 24, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on June 30, 1989 and July 25, 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 of complaint dated February 1, 1989 and filed with the
Commission on February 2, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission,
alleging that his request to review all records of the Wallingford Town Council
Committee to Investigate Purchasing Practices of the Board of Education (the
"committee") had been denied.
3.
It is found that the complainant, by letter dated January 9, 1989,
requested of the respondent the opportunity to review and possibly make copies
of:
a. all
documentation relating to the committee; and
b. all
minutes, agenda, tapes and testimony regarding the committee, including all
information by all members of the committee and the respondent's consultant.
4.
It is found that the respondent provided approximately three cartons of
records for the complainant to inspect on January 19, 1989.
Docket #FIC
89-61 Page 2
5.
It is found that the following records were not made available for the
complainant to inspect on January 19, 1989:
a. a
copy of a letter dated September 9, 1988 from the respondent to the Wallingford
Town Attorney inquiring as to the role of the Town Attorney's Office in the
committee's investigations;
b. a
copy of the first page of a three-page memorandum from the respondent regarding
the committee's investigations (the second and third pages of which constitute
Exhibit R in this matter);
c. a
tape recording of telephone conversations conducted on August 2 and August 3,
1988 between the respondent's consultant and a vice president of Hewlett
Packard;
d. a
list of questions asked of Comptroller Thomas Myers by the respondent at the
committee's September 12, 1988 meeting;
e. a
copy of a letter dated September 6, 1988 from the respondent to Comptroller
Myers inviting Myers to testify before the committee;
f. an
original packing slip for an IBM color monitor and processor with a shipping
date of June 30, 1987;
g. an
anonymous letter delivered to the respondent relating to the subject of the
committee's investigations;
h. tape
recordings of the minutes of the committee's meetings; and
i. a
copy of a letter dated September 12, 1988 from the respondent to the State of
Connecticut Public Records Administrator.
6.
It is found that the tape recording described in paragraph 5.c, above,
was made by the respondent's consultant on his own initiative and was not
owned, used, received or retained by the respondent.
7.
It is also found that the respondent's consultant is not a public agency
within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC
89-61 Page 3
8.
It is concluded therefore that the record described in paragraph 5.c,
above, is not a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.
9.
It is also concluded that the records described in paragraph 5, above,
with the exception of the record described in paragraph 5.c, above, are all
public records within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.
10.
With respect to the anonymous letter described in paragraph 5.g, above,
the respondent maintains that this letter was delivered in confidence to him
personally at his residence.
11.
It is found, however, that expectations of confidentiality do not in
themselves constitute an exception to the requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act.
12.
It is also found that, in any event, the author of the anonymous letter
described in paragraph 5.g, above, is not identified in that letter.
13.
It is also found that the contents of the letter described in pargraph
5.g, above, formed the basis for discussion among committee members in the
course of their investigations.
14.
It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-19(a),
G.S., by failing to provide an opportunity to inspect the record described in
paragraph 5.g, above.
15.
With respect to the records described in paragraph 5.h, above, it is
found that the respondent provided copies of those records to the complainant
approximately four weeks after the complainant's request.
16.
It is also found that the delay in providing access to the records
described in paragraph 5.h, above, was caused by the respondent's delivery of
the originals of the records described in paragraph 5.h, above, to the
Wallingford Police Department.
17.
It is concluded, however, that the failure of the respondent to maintain
the records described in paragraph 5.h, above, in an accessible place does not
excuse the respondent from the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
18.
It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-19(a),
G.S., by failing to provide access to the records described in paragraph 5.h.,
above, promptly during regular office or business hours.
Docket #FIC
89-61 Page 4
19.
With respect to the records described in paragraphs 5.a, 5.b., 5.d, 5.e,
5.f and 5.i, above, the respondent offered no defense for his failure to
provide access to those records other than uncertainty about the location of
those records.
20.
It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-19(a),
G.S., by failing to provide access to the records described in paragraphs 5.a,
5.b, 5.d, 5.e, 5.f and 5.i, above.
21.
It is also found that the complainant has obtained from other sources
copies of the records described in paragraphs 5.d and 5.e, above.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
The respondent shall forthwith, at no cost to the complainant, provide
the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraphs 5.a, 5.b,
5.f, 5.g and 5.i, above, or, within two weeks of the issuance of the Notice of
Final Decision in this matter, provide the complainant with an affidavit
stating that he has conducted a thorough search of his records, including any
records currently maintained at locations other than the respondent's office or
regular place of business, and that the records requested by the complainant no
longer exist.
2.
The respondent shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the
requirements of 1-19(a), G.S., regarding maintenance of his records at his
regular office or place of business in an accessible place.
Approved by
order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 24, 1990.
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
89-61 Page 5
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:
NELSON P. KARI
Wallingford Public
Schools
18 Kondracki
Lane
Wallingford, CT
06492
CHAIRMAN,
WALLINGFORD TOWN COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE PURCHASING PRACTICES OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
c/o Robert
Parisi, Chairman
45 South Main
Street
Wallingford, CT
06492
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission