The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on 
February 19, 1991, 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. Pursuant to §1-15, G.S., by letter of request to the 
respondent dated November 2, 1990 (hereinafter "document request "), 
the complainant requested a copy of a mailing list of elderly 
persons residing in the town of Hebron which is used by the Hebron 
Commission on Aging (hereinafter the "list").

	3. It is found that the document request was hand delivered by 
the complainant to the respondent on November 3, 1990.

	4. It is also found that the respondent refused to comply with 
the complainant's document request.

	5. The complainant filed his appeal with this Commission on 
November 5, 1990.

	6. It is found that the requested information is maintained as 
a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

	7. The respondent maintains that the list requested was 
withheld from disclosure in an effort to protect the privacy rights 
of the town's elderly residents.

	8. Specifically, the respondent maintains that the 
document request was not complied with in order to protect the 
elderly residents from harassing or annoying contact by the 
complainant or any other individual making a request for the 
same information.

	9. The respondent also testified that the list was 
compiled from information supplied by elderly residents 
applying for a "gold card" which would entitle them to 
discounted fees for goods and services. However, nothing on 
the application notified the applicants that the information 
could or would become public.

	10. It is found that the respondent failed to either 
allege or prove the applicability of any statutory exemption 
to disclosure of the information requested.

	11. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant 
testified that he is active in efforts to ensure that all 
voters have access to polling places during an election.

	12. Specifically, the complainant testified that he made 
the document request in order to get information that would 
allow him to provide transportation to polling places for the 
town's elderly citizens who might otherwise be unable to get 
to the polls to vote.

	13. It is found that the respondent was fully aware of 
the purpose for which the complainant sought the list.

	14. It is found that under the circumstances of this 
case, there is no evidence that disclosure of the list to the 
complainant would subject the town's elderly citizens to 
harassment, annoyance or an invasion of personal privacy.

	15. It is therefore concluded that the respondent should 
have disclosed the list to the complainant in accordance with 
§§1-15 and 1-l9(a), G.S.

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

	1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant 
with the requested list in accordance with §§1-15 and 
1-l9(a), G.S.

	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at 
its regular meeting of August 14, 1991.

______________________
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission

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:

WILLIAM F. MCDONALD, ESQ.
1052 Enfield Street
Enfield, CT 06082

RICHARD T. BIGGAR, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105

ROBERT A. WHITEHEAD, JR., ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106

______________________
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission