FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Fred B. Feins,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-248

Town Clerk, Town of Simsbury,

Respondent November 28, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 22, 1990, 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 June 22, 1990, the complainant requested the following of the respondent: a computer printout of all information possessed by the town of Simsbury in connection with the licensing and ownership of household pets, including but not limited to dogs and cats.

3. By letter dated June 26, 1990, the respondent replied that it would supply the information with a modification (i.e. redaction of telephone numbers) and for charges associated with a new computer program.

4. By letter filed with this Commission on July 3, 1990, the complainant alleged denial of his request.

5. It is found that a 196-page computer printout was in fact provided by the respondent to the complainant free of charge.

6. The complainant claims that the respondent possesses further information concerning licensing and ownership of household pets.

7. It is found that the respondent does not dispute the complainant's claims identified in paragraph 6, above.

Docket #FIC 90-248 Page 2

8. It is also found, however, that the respondent has provided the complainant with its current computer printout, unredacted, containing data sought by the complainant.

9. At hearing, the complainant made a request that his June 22, 1990 request for information be amended to provide that his request not be limited to computerized printouts.

10. It is found, however, that a general request for any documentation possessed by the respondent outside its computer base is beyond the scope of the complaint in this case.

11. It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the complaint is moot.

12. The Commission suggests that if the complainant desires access to or copies of any documentation additional to the data the respondent actually has in its computer base, he may make such an additional request.

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 November 28, 1990.

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-248 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:

FRED B. FEINS

P.O. Box 564

Unionville, CT 06085

TOWN CLERK, TOWN OF SIMSBURY

c/o Ralph G. Elliot, Esq.

William S. Fish, Jr., Esq.

Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn

CityPlace - 35th Floor

Hartford, CT 06103

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission