FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Gary J. Swingle,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-23
Morris Assessor,
Respondent August 26, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 20, 1992, 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 filed with this Commission on January 17, 1992, the complainant alleged that on January 14, 1992 he was denied copies of certain street cards, which cards the complainant also sought from the respondent in December 1991.
3. It is found that the street cards identified in paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
4. The respondent filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the respondent failed to put his request for records in writing as provided by 1-15(a), G.S.
5. It is found, however, that the respondent never required or requested that the complainant put his request for copies of public records in writing, and that the respondent waives any such requirement when individuals request only one or a few such cards. Accordingly, the motion identified in paragraph 4, above, is denied.
6. It is found that the respondent is paid by the town for a 35-hour work week and generally works from 9a.m. to 12 noon and 1p.m. to 5p.m. on Monday through Friday.
7. It is found that the selectman's secretary will "cover" for the respondent if he leaves the office unexpectedly (as in
Docket #FIC 92-23 Page 2
the case of illness or a required court appearance).
8. It is found that the respondent's responsibilities include the viewing of properties numbering approximately 1300 in volume for purposes of assessing their values.
9. It is also found that the respondent is often absent from the office between 1p.m. and 4p.m. to conduct those activities described in paragraph 8, above.
10. It is also found that the respondent personally retains the only two keys to the assessor's file cabinets.
11. At the hearing into this matter, the respondent asserted that he cannot provide other individuals unlimited access to assessor files for security purposes.
12. It is found that the respondent keeps the street cards in issue in locked file drawers containing some records exempted from public disclosure including some confidential tax records.
13. It is found that the respondent's intermingling of confidential records with non-exempt records in locked cabinets coupled with his unwillingness to leave a file key with any other town employee directly resulted in the complainant's inability to access the public records in question.
14. It is also found that the complainant could have accessed the records at issue through other town personnel in the respondent's absence had the records not been under lock and key.
15. It is concluded that the respondent's failure to
promptly provide the complainant with the public record identified in paragraph 2, above, constitutes a violation of 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning tha above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.
2. Although this Commission is not specifically ordering the respondent to do so, the Commission points out that the respondent's compliance with 1-19(a), G.S. could be facilitated by the separation of non-exempt from confidential records.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 26, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting 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:
Gary J. Swingle
2579 Litchfield Road
Watertown, CT 06795
Morris Assessor
c/o Michael D. Rybak, Esq.
Guion, Stevens & Rybak
93 West Street
P.O. Box 338
Litchfield, CT 06759-0338
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission