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