FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by Final
Decision
William J.
Choma, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-217
Princess
Pocotopaug Association,
Respondent November 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on October 22, 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 of complaint filed July 1, 1992, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to
comply with the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 92-54, William J. Choma, Jr.
against Princess Pocotopaug Association, and requesting that the Commission
impose a civil penalty against the respondent association.
3. The Commission takes administrative notice of its record
and final decision in Docket #FIC 92-54.
4. It is found that the complainant in Docket #FIC 92-54
requested on January 25, 1992 the records of the exact legal expenditures
regarding the mobile home situation that had occurred in the Town of East
Hampton.
5. It is found that the "mobile home situation"
concerned a zoning enforcement action and litigation involving the
complainant's mobile home.
6. The respondent maintains that it was not the enforcement
agent in the mobile home dispute, and that it was not a party to litigation
about that dispute.
7. It is found, however, that the respondent did incur
legal fees and costs in connection with the mobile home dispute, and that the
respondent understood the scope of the complainant's January 25, 1992 request.
Docket #FIC
92-217 Page
2
8. It is found that, on or about March 19, 1992, three days
before the hearing in Docket #FIC 92-54, the respondent provided the
complainant with a listing of all legal fees of the association since July 1,
1991.
9. It is found that the listing referenced in paragraph 8,
above, contains a variety of disbursements, such as small claims court fees,
fees to the East Hampton town clerk to release liens, costs for copies, tapes
and notices, and also legal fees.
10. It is found that the listing provided to the complainant
was not limited to the scope of the request, and that it cannot reasonably be
determined from that listing which expenditures concerned the complainant's
request.
11. It is found that the Commission in Docket #FIC 92-54
concluded that the respondent had violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by
failing to provide copies of the requested records promptly upon request.
12. It is also found that the Commission in Docket #FIC 92-54
ordered the respondent forthwith to provide the complainant with copies of the
records he had requested on January 25, 1992.
13. It is found that, two days before the hearing in the
present matter, the respondent finally provided the complainant with a document
that identified which expenditures concerned the complainant's request.
14. It is concluded that the respondent failed to comply with
Commission's order in Docket #FIC 92-54 by failing to forthwith provide the
complainant with copies of the records he had requested in that matter.
15. The respondent maintains that it believed that the
complainant was satisfied with the records provided him on March 19, 1992.
16. It is found that both the complainant's request and the
Commission's order in Docket #FIC 92-54 were clearly understandable to the
respondent.
17. It is found that the respondent has nonetheless
deliberately withheld documents ordered to be provided by the Commission until
the eve of the hearing on this matter.
18. It is concluded that the respondent had no reasonable
grounds within the meaning of 1-21i(b), G.S., for failing to comply with
the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 92-54.
Docket #FIC
92-217 Page
3
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The Commission imposes a civil penalty in the amount of
one hundred dollars ($100.00) pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., against the
respondent. The respondent shall pay
the penalty to the Commission within 30 days of the issuance of the final
decision in this matter.
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
92-217 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:
William J.
Choma, Jr.
20 Namonee Trail
East Hampton, CT
06424
Princess
Pocotopaug Association
c/o Irene Curtis
P.O. Box. 41
East Hampton, CT
06424
Debra
L. Rembowski
Acting
Clerk of the Commission