FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

C. J. Mozzochi,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-259

James M. Thomas, Chief of Police, Town of Glastonbury,

Respondent June 26, 1991

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 24, 1991 and June 6, 1991, at which times 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 17, 1990, the complainant requested a copy of the complete file of an investigation conducted by the respondent's department concerning two cardboard strips of nails found near the complainant's driveway on May 8, 1990.

3. By letter dated June 27, 1990, counsel for the respondent replied to the complainant's request stating that the respondent had been advised by counsel not to comply with the complainant's request.

4. By letter dated June 28, 1990 and filed June 29, 1990, the complainant appealed the respondent's refusal of access to the requested file and requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondent for failing to provide public documents.

5. The respondent maintains that he did not disclose the requested file upon the complainant's request because of

Docket #FIC 90-259 Page Two

Advisory Opinion #71 and the history between the town of Glastonbury and the complainant.

6. On December 19, 1990, Advisory Opinion #71 was remanded to the Commission for further consideration.

7. It is found that the respondent provided a copy of the requested file, described in paragraph 2, above, to the complainant on May 22, 1991.

8. The respondent contends that he did not disclose the requested file immediately after the remand of Advisory Opinion #71 because he wished to preserve his rights under Advisory Opinion #71 until the Commission took action to schedule this matter for hearing.

9. Although the Commission notes the unusual circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide prompt access to public documents.

10. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record of its proceedings, and its findings, in Advisory Opinion #71.

11. In light of the particular circumstances of this case, the Commission, in its discretion, declines to impose a civil penalty.

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

1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

2. The Commission's forbearance in the imposition of a civil penalty should not in any way be construed as acquiescence in the respondent's failure to comply with the requirements set forth in the Freedom of Information Act.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 26, 1991.

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-259 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:

C. J. MOZZOCHI

Box 60

South Glastonbury, CT 06073

JAMES M. THOMAS, CHIEF OF POLICE, TOWN OF GLASTONBURY

Represented by:

William S. Rogers, Esq.

Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn

CityPlace - 35th Floor

Hartford, CT 06103-3488

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission