FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Susan G. Kniep,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-206

 

East Hartford Housing Authority,

 

                        Respondent                  January 27, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 14, 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 June 22, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that her June 8, 1992 request for certain documents had been denied.

 

            3.         It is found that the complainant by letter dated June 8, 1992 requested from the respondent copies of any and all documents that would disclose fees paid on behalf of the respondent to the law firm of Brady, Willard & Alexander for the past five years, delineating the year the fees were paid and the services for which the fees were paid.

 

            4.         It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request by letter dated June 15, 1992.

 

            5.         It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            6.         It is found that at the time of the denial of the complainant's request, the respondent maintained that it would not provide the records because the respondent believed that the complainant, as Mayor of East Hartford, lacked the authority to "overview the administration of the Housing Authority."

 

            7.         At the request of both parties, the Commission takes administrative notice of its record and proposed decision in Docket #FIC 92-160, Susan Kniep v. East Hartford Housing Authority.

 

Docket #FIC 92-206                           Page 2

 

            8.         It is concluded that the rights guaranteed by the FOI Act apply with equal force to public officials as to private persons, and that one purpose of the FOI Act is to prevent public officials from withholding public records for political or partisan purposes.

 

            9.         It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide, promptly upon request, the requested documents.

 

            10.       By letter filed with the Commission the day before the hearing on this matter, the complainant sought to amend her complaint to request the imposition of civil penalties against the respondent.

 

            11.       The respondent maintains that its denial of the complainant's request was reasonable, because at the time of the request there was an ongoing dispute before the East Hartford Audits and Investigation Committee concerning the complainant's authority to view the respondent's records.

 

            12.       At the hearing, the respondent indicated that it is now willing to provide the requested documents, and to resolve its internecine dispute with the complainant in another forum.

 

            13.       While making no findings as to the reasonableness of the respondent's denial, the Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondent, based upon its representation that it is currently processing the complainant's request as expeditiously as possible, and will continue to do so in the future.

 

            14.       The respondent also testified that it has been working on fulfilling the complainant's request, and that an additional three or four weeks would be required to complete the task, given that some of the records have been placed in storage, and that the records must be reviewed in order to protect information exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4) and (10), G.S.

 

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

 

            1.         Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., regardless of whether requests for records originate with the general public or with public officials.

 

Docket #FIC 92-206                           Page 3

 

            2.         Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the final decision in this matter, the respondent shall provide to the complainant the records described in paragraph 3 of the findings, above.  The respondent may mask or otherwise delete or redact any discrete portions of the records exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4) or (10), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 27, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-206                           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:

Susan G. Kniep

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

East Hartford Housing Authority

c/o Attorney Ralph J. Alexander

Brady, Willard & Alexander

330 Roberts Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission