FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Francis P. Kerr,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-220

 

Bristol Zoning Enforcement Officer and Bristol Zoning Commission,

 

                        Respondents                 February 10, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 21, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated June 8, 1992, the complainant requested from the respondents records, including photographs, concerning certain alleged zoning violations that the complainant had been charged with by the respondents.

 

            3.  Specifically, the complainant requested:

 

                        a.  the names of individuals who made

                                    zoning violation complaints against the complainant to the respondents;

 

                        b.  records substantiating the alleged

                                    zoning violations; and

 

                        c.  the names of individuals who

                                    released information about the complainant to the Hartford Courant and the Bristol Press.

 

            4.  By letter dated June 24, 1992, the respondents informed the complainant that their entire file, including photographs and log book, were previously made available to the complainant on or about May 29, 1992.  In addition, the

 

Docket #FIC 92-220                           Page 2

 

respondents informed the complainant that he could reinspect any records if he so desired.

 

            5.  By letter of complaint dated July 2, 1992, and filed with the Commission on July 6, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission claiming that the respondents have not made available all the information he requested.

 

            6.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 3b., above, it is found that the respondents provided the complainant with all existing documents relative to that component of the complainant's request for records.

 

            7.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 3a. and 3c., above, it is found that no records exist containing the names of individuals who made complaints against the complainant, or who released information to the Hartford Courant and the Bristol Press.

 

            8.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate any of the complainant's rights under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            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 wishes to remind the respondents that 1-19(a), G.S., requires that records be made available "promptly during regular office or business hours."  The Commission further reminds the respondents that pursuant to 1-18a(b), G.S., the definition of meeting includes "any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency," and, as such, hearings are subject to the written notice and minutes provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 10, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Mitchell W. Pearlman

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-220                           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:

 

Francis P. Kerr

24 Marine Court

Forestville, CT 06010

 

Bristol Zoning Enforcement Officer and Bristol Zoning Commission

c/o Atty. Richard E. Lacey

Corporation Counsel's Office

111 North Main Street

Bristol, CT 06010

 

                                                                  

                                    Mitchell W. Pearlman

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission