FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Matthew A. Paulsen,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-115
Bethel First Selectman,
Respondent November 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 30, 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. Through a series of letters dated between March 4, 1992 and March 31, 1992, the complainant requested from the respondent a copy of Bethel's "Code of Ethics" applicable to all officers and employees of the town, and which is required under the town's charter.
3. By letter dated March 17, 1992, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the town's "Personnel Rules and Regulations," which the respondent claimed were adopted in fullfilment of the town's charter provisions regarding establishing a code of ethics.
4. By letter dated March 24, 1992, the complainant renewed his earlier request for a "Code of Ethics," claiming that the "Personnel Rules and Regulations" provided him were not applicable to elected officers, persons appointed to fill vacancies in elective offices and persons appointed to boards and commissions.
5. Having received no response to his March 24, 1992 letter and a subsequent letter dated March 31, 1992 to the same effect, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter of complaint dated April 6, 1992, and filed with the Commission on April 7, 1992.
Docket #FIC 91-115 Page 2
6. The respondent claims that the only documents he found that in any manner meets the complainant's request for a copy of a code of ethics are the "Personnel Rules and Regulations" he previously provided to the complainant. He further alleges that the complainant knew this to be the case before the date of this hearing, and therefore seeks the imposition of a civil penalty against the complainant persuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.
7. It is found that no town code of ethics, per se, exists and that by providing the complainant with a copy of Bethel's "Personnel Rules and Regulations," the respondent provided the complainant with all existing documents relative to the complainant's request for the code of ethics.
8. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate any of the complainant's rights under the Freedom of Information Act.
9. It is also concluded, however, that the complainant did not file his complaint in this matter frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassment, and accordingly, the imposition of a civil penalty is unwarranted.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission notes that the hearing in this matter could have been, and should have been, avoided if the parties had made a good faith effort to effectively communicate with each other as to what was at issue herein. By needlessly requiring a hearing, the parties are responsible for the unnecessary expenditure of state, and presumably town and personal, resources at a time when such resources are especially scarce.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-115 Page 3
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:
Matthew Paulsen
P.O. Box 1012
Bethel, CT 06801
Bethel First Selectman
c/o Attorney Stephen C. Gallagher
Gallagher & Gallagher
30 Main Street
Danbury, CT 06810
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission