FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John G. Carlton, Stephen J. Humes and The Bridgeport Post,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 90-303
Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Bridgeport City Attorney,
Respondent(s) December 12 , 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 6, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 90-299 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.
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. On August 9, 1990, the complainants made a written request to the respondent to:
(a) inspect any file with correspondence or other documents since January 1, 1985, concerning the purchase and/or disposition of land as it pertains to Joseph Garamella's proposed land swap transaction with Sikorsky Memorial Airport (hereinafter "land swap"); and
(b) copy any document, memorandum, letter, agreement or interdepartmental correspondence between the respondent and Bridgeport's mayor or transportation director, or between the mayor and the transportation director relating to the proposed land swap.
3. By letter of complaint dated August 27, 1990, and filed with the Commission on August 28, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondent failed to comply with their August 9, 1990 document request.
4. The complainants request the imposition of a civil penalty.
Docket #FIC 90-303 Page 2
5. It is found that the respondent has disclosed all of the records requested, with the exception of eight documents which she alleges are exempt from disclosure.
6. It is concluded that the requested records are public records, as defined by 1-18a(d), G.S.
7. The respondent claims that the eight documents that have been withheld from public inspection and photocopying are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S., regarding documents relating to pending claims and litigation, and 1-19(b)(10), G.S., as communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.
8. It is found that there is a pending civil action which involves the property which is the subject of the complainant's document request.
9. It is concluded, however, that the respondent failed to show that the information contained in the documents described in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the findings, above, pertains to strategy and negotiations with respect to the pending lawsuit within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
10. It is found that the respondent failed to offer any proof that the documents withheld are either confidential or contain confidential communications between the respondent and the mayor or transportation director within the meaning of 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
11. It is concluded, therefore, that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure by either 1-19(b)(4) or 1-19(b)(10), G.S., and are subject to disclosure pursuant to 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
12. The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the complainants.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket #FIC 90-303 Page 3
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with certified copies of the documents more fully described in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the findings, above.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions for public records, as set forth in 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 12, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-303 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:
JOHN C. CARLTON, STEPHEN J. HUMES AND THE BRIDGEPORT POST
410 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
BARBARA BRAZZEL-MASSARO, BRIDGEPORT CITY ATTORNEY
c/o Robert G. Zanesky, Esq.
Associate City Attorney
202 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission