FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Dick Conrad and New Haven
Register,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 91-398
New Haven Assessor,
Respondent September 9, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on July 2, 1992 and July 23, 1992, at which times the complainants and the
respondent appeared 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 December 2, 1991, the complainants requested the results of a reappraisal
program conducted by Sabre Systems, including property addresses,
map-block-parcels, types of properties, 1978 assessed values and 1991 assessed
values. They also requested a list of
the fields available in the respondent's data base as well as the "sales
book" maintained by the assessor's office showing the sales prices for
real property for the past several years.
The complainants requested the information on computer tape.
3. By letter
filed with this Commission on December 23, 1991, the complainants alleged that
the respondent denied the request under the FOI Act by way of non-response.
4. At the
hearings into this matter, that portion of the complainants' request for the
"sales book" maintained by the assessor's office showing the sales
prices for real property for the past several years was withdrawn.
5. It is
found that the respondent contracted with Sabre Systems to assist him in making
the reappraisal and revaluation of real property located in the city of New
Haven (hereinafter "the project").
6. It is also
found that all work carried out and all forms, materials and supplies utilized
in the project were subject to the direct supervision and approval of the
respondent.
Docket #FIC 91-398 Page
2
7. It is
found that Sabre Systems had fulfilled and completed all of its obligations
under its contract with the respondent (hereinafter "contract").
8. It is
found that Sabre Systems designed property record cards ("street
cards") that contained information concerning property values including
but not limited to: location, usage classifications, physical characteristics,
depreciated values, fair market values and assessment values.
9. The
contract provided that Sabre Systems would complete these street cards with all
measurements, listing, pricing, review and final valuation by September 30,
1991.
10. It is
found that on November 25, 1991, Sabre Systems held a press conference at which
they made a document available that summarized the completed revaluation
process.
11. It is
found that on or about December 9, 1991, the respondent mailed the property
owners their notices of new assessments.
12. It is
found that the records requested by the complainants and described in paragraph
2, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
13. At the
hearings into this matter, the respondent claimed that the data compiled by
Sabre Systems was held at by Sabre Systems and was not available at the
respondent's office at the time of the complainants' request. The respondent accordingly filed a motion to
dismiss the case on the basis that the data was not a public record at the time
of the complainants' request, which motion is denied.
14. The
respondent also claims that the requested records are exempt from disclosure as
preliminary drafts or notes pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
15. It is
found, however, that the respondent was involved in an ongoing review of the
records generated by Sabre Systems along with six other members of his staff.
16. It is
also found that although some appraisals may have been subject to change as a
result of the hearing process during which property owners challenged and/or
offered additional information concerning their assessments, the records at
issue comprised part of the process by which governmental decisions were
formulated within the meaning of 1-19(c), G.S.
17. It is
accordingly concluded that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-398 Page
3
18. It is
concluded that the respondent's failure to promptly provide the complainants
with the requested records identified in the first sentence of paragraph 2,
above, is a violation of 1-19(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 complainants with a copy of the records
identified in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, excepting the "sales
book."
2. The
respondent shall forthwith strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a),
G.S.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 9, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 91-398 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:
Dick Conrad
The New Haven Register
40 Sargent Drive
New Haven, CT 06511-5918
New Haven Assessor
c/o Attorney Aileen Bell
Office of the Corporation
Counsel
770 Chapel Street
New Haven, CT 06510
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission