FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Linda Palermo,

 

                        Complainant,

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-319

 

Town Attorney & Town of Stratford,

 

                        Respondents                 April 11, 1989

 

                        The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing October 17, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented evidence, testimony, 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 letter of complaint filed August 10, 1989, the complainant alleged that the respondents had denied her copies of records.

 

            3.         By letter dated July 31, 1989 the complainant requested copies of the following records:

 

            a.         the first page of any law suits which had been filed against the town of Stratford from November 1987, to the present;

            b.         the first page of any law suits which had been filed against the Stratford Police Department from November 1987, to the present;

            c.         the names and addresses of any attorneys who represented the Town of Stratford in any action commencing November 1987, to the present;

            d.         all itemized bills submitted by subcontracting attorneys for services from November 1987, to the present; and

            e.         the names and addresses of attorneys representing the board of education, as well as those mentioned in items a, b, and d, above.

 

Docket #FIC 89-319                           Page 2

 

            4.         The respondents claim that items a and b of the complainant's request are exempt because they relate to pending litigation; that items c and d are exempt as strategy and negotiation with respect to pending litigation and also under the attorney/client privilege; and that the records requested at item e, do not exist.

 

            5.         It is found that the respondents do not have the records requested at item e, above.

 

            6.         It is found that the respondents failed to prove by any credible evidence that items a through d are exempt from disclosure.

 

            7.         It is found that the complainant herein attempted to use the hearing held by the Commission in this matter to conduct an inquiry far beyond the scope of her complaint: she was abusive to the respondent attorney, and she disregarded the directions of the hearing officer.

 

            8.         It is further found that the complainant served a subpoena upon the director of finance of the respondent town to compel his attendance at the Commission hearing.

 

            9.         It is found that the director of finance came to Hartford from Stratford in time for the hearing and sat through two hours of hearing before being called as a witness by the complainant.

 

            10.       It is found that when the complainant called the director of finance as a witness she attempted to ask him questions about a matter totally unrelated to the August 10, 1989 complaint which was the subject of the hearing.

 

            11.       It is found that although the Commission has a history of leniency towards pro se litigants, the the status of a pro se complainant does not authorize a person to abuse the hearing process.

 

            12.       It is found that the complainant conducted herself at hearing in a manner which abused the hearing process.

 

            13.       It is concluded that under the regrettable circumstances of this case the Commission declines to exercise its authority to order disclosure of the requested records.

 

Docket #FIC 89-319                           Page 3

 

            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.

                                   

            2.         This decision is confined to the unusual circumstances of this case.  It should not be construed as approving the decision of the respondent to withhold the requested records; and it should not be construed as a precedent which requires dismissal of a case if a complainant subpoenas a witness, but subsequently decides not to call the witness.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 11, 1990.

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-319                           Page 4

 

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:

LINDA PALERMO

46 Vought Place

Stratford, CT 06497

 

TOWN OF ATTORNEY, TOWN OF STRATFORD

c/o John A. Florek, Esquire

Town Attorney

2725 Main Street

Stratford, CT 06497

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission