FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Denis O'Sullivan

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-355

 

Watertown Fire District

 

                        Respondent                  March 13, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 14, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  A public hearing of the respondent's zoning board of appeals was held on July 24, 1990.

 

            3.  Subsequently, on August 10, 1990, the complainant requested a copy of the minutes of the July 24, 1990 hearing from the respondent and was informed that there were no minutes of the hearing as such, but there was a transcript of the public hearing, serving the function of minutes.

 

            4. The complainant was further informed on August 10, 1990 that the fee for a copy of the July 24, 1990 transcript would be $150.00.

 

            5.  By letter of complaint dated September 10, 1990 and filed with the Commission on September 11, 1990, as clarified by an additional letter from the complainant dated September 18, 1990 and filed with the Commission on September 20, 1990, the complainant alleged that the $150.00 fee for a copy of the July 24, 1990 hearing transcript is in excess of the amount authorized for copies of agency minutes under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            6.  It is found that the respondent intended, and did in fact, order three copies of the transcript for its own use,

 

Docket #FIC 90-355                                    Page Two

 

notwithstanding the complainant's request.  It is also found that the cost for four copies of the transcript was estimated to be $600.00 and that the $150.00 fee to be charged represented one-fourth of the respondent's estimated total cost for four copies.

 

            7.  1-15, G.S., provides in relevant part that the fee for a copy of a public record "shall not exceed fifty cents per page", but that if a request for a record "requires a transcription, or if any person applies for a transcription of a public record, the fee for such transcription shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency."

 

            8.  It is found that the complainant did not request a transcription.

 

            9.  It is also found that because the respondent had already decided to order a transcription for its own purposes, compliance with the complainant's request did not require a transcription within the meaning of 1-15, G.S., but rather a copy of a transcription.

 

            10.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15, G.S., by not providing the complainant with a copy of the July 24, 1990 hearing transcript, at a cost not exceeding fifty cents per page.

 

            11.  Both the complainant and the respondent have asked that civil penalties be imposed upon one another.

 

            12.  It is concluded, in view of the facts presented in this case, that the imposition of civil penalties against either party would be inappropriate.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  Upon written request by the complainant, the respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the transcript of the July 24, 1990 hearing and shall charge the complainant an amount not in excess of fifty cents per page in accordance with 1-15, G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 13, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-355                                    Page Three

 

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:

DENIS O'SULLIVAN

238 North Street

Watertown, CT 06795

 

WATERTOWN FIRE DISTRICT

c/o John H. Cassidy, Jr., Esq.

Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, P.C.

41 Church Street

P.O. Box 2818

Waterbury, CT 06723-2818

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission