FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by Final
Decision
Stuart Groten
and Stuart Lane Company,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-235
Goshen Assessor,
Respondent March 10, 1993
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on January 21, 1993, at which time the complainants
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 20, 1992, the
complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that they were denied the
opportunity to see property field cards when they visited the respondent's
office on July 16, 1992.
3. It is found that the complainants visited the
respondent's office on Thursday, July 16, 1992 to gather information to
complete field work for an appraisal.
4. It is found that the complainants believed that the
respondent's office would be open to the public, since the Goshen town hall is
open five days a week.
5. It is found, however, that the respondent works only two
full days a week for the town of Goshen, and that it is her policy to be
available to the public for information requests on Wednesdays only.
6. It is found that the respondent was working in the
Goshen town hall on the day the complainants visited it, but remained in her
office behind a closed door and did not make herself available for document
requests or other public queries.
7. It is found that the complainants, after being informed
of the respondent's policy by the Goshen town clerk, asked whether it would be
possible to obtain information from certain property field cards that day,
since they had traveled to Goshen from Rocky Hill for that purpose.
Docket #FIC
92-235 Page
2
8. It is found that the town clerk asked the respondent to
make an exception to her policy, and arranged for a copy of the field card for the property which the
complainants were appraising to be made promptly.
9. It is found that the complainants then asked the town
clerk if they could inspect four additional field cards of comparable
properties.
10. It is found that the town clerk told the complainants that
the respondent's policy was to put such requests in writing, together with a
fee for copying, and that the respondent would later provide copies.
11. It is found that it is the respondent's policy that
requests to inspect field cards on days other than Wednesdays must be submitted
in writing together with a copying fee of $0.50 per page, and that copies of
field cards are either picked up from her office on Wednesdays or mailed to the
requesters.
12. It is found that the complainants sought only to inspect
the field cards of the comparable properties, not to obtain copies of them, but
submitted a written request and the fee for copies to get the information as
quickly as possible.
13. It is found that the complainants then saw the respondent
at the copying machine, and asked that the copies be made that day, since they
had a job to complete and had traveled some distance to do it.
14. It is found that the respondent replied that she would not
make the copies immediately, but that the complainants could return after lunch
for them.
15. It is found that the complainants returned at 1:00 p.m.,
and found that the respondent had left a note indicating that she would be at
lunch from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m.
16. It is found that the complainants returned again at 2:00
p.m., before the respondent.
17. It is found that the first selectman's secretary called a
selectman on behalf of the complainants, and that the selectman authorized her
to copy the field cards.
18. It is found that the first selectman's secretary attempted
to retrieve the requested field cards, but could not do so because they were in
a locked file to which the respondent had the only available keys.
Docket #FIC
92-235 Page
3
19. It is found that the respondent returned to her office at
2:50 p.m., at which time she remained behind her closed office door and denied
the complainants' request to make the cards available that day or any day other
than a Wednesday.
20. It is found that the complainants left their written
request with the First Selectman's secretary and asked that the copies be
mailed or faxed to them.
21. It is found that the complainants telephoned the first
selectman's secretary the next morning to verify if the copies were sent, and
were advised that they would have to return the next Wednesday for copies.
22. It is found that the complainants returned on Wednesday
July 22, and paid for and received copies of the requested field cards.
23. It is found that the requested field cards are public
records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
24. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
... all records maintained or
kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by
any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person
shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or
business hours .... Any agency rule or
regulation or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this
subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this
subsection shall be void. [Emphasis
added].
25. It is concluded that, notwithstanding the respondent's
policy not to be available to the public one of the two days she works, her
work and presence at the town hall on Thursday July 16 constituted regular
office or business hours within the meaning of Section 1-19(a), G.S.
26. The respondent maintains that she did not violate the
Freedom of Information Act because copies of the requested field cards were
given to the complainants in person on July 22.
27. Specifically, the respondent maintains that copies of the
requested records were provided within four business days of the request, in
claimed compliance with 1-21i(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC
92-235 Page
4
28. Section 1-21i(a), G.S., provides:
Any denial of
the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-19 shall be
made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has
custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days
of such request. Failure to comply with
a request to so inspect or copy such public record within such four-business-day
period shall be deemed to be a denial.
29. It is concluded that 1-21i(a), G.S., requires denials
to requests to be issued within four days, and deems a failure to comply within
four days to be a denial of the request.
30. It is concluded, however, that 1-21i(a), G.S., does not
define a four-day response as either prompt or not prompt, but rather sets a
time limit for the agency to issue a denial, after the expiration of which time
limit the request is deemed denied and an appeal may be taken under
1-21i(b), G.S.
31. Further, it is found that in this case the respondent
actually denied the complainants' request to inspect the subject records on the
same day they requested it.
32. It is additionally found that the complainants' need for
the information was immediate, that this need was communicated to the
respondent, and that other personnel in the Goshen town hall were available to
retrieve the field cards and make copies for the complainants.
33. On its own motion, the Commission takes administrative
notice of its record and final decision in Docket #FIC 92-23, Gary J. Swingle
against Morris Assessor.
34. In Swingle against Morris Assessor, the Commission found
that the availability of other town personnel to provide access to assessment
records kept locked by the assessor was relevant to a determination of whether
records were provided promptly.
35. It is found that in this case, as in Swingle, the
complainants could have promptly inspected the records at issue through other
town personnel in the respondent's absence, had the records not been under lock
and key available only to the respondent.
36. It is concluded under the facts of this case that the
provision of records on July 22 was not prompt.
Docket #FIC
92-235 Page
5
37. It is also concluded that 1-19(a), G.S., provides a
right of inspection, without fee, separate and distinct from the right to
obtain copies, and that the respondent may not elect to provide copies for a
fee as a substitute for cost-free access to the original records.
38. The respondent also maintains that she did not violate the
Freedom of Information Act because the assessors of other small neighboring
towns also limit their hours.
39. The complainants maintain, however, that other assessors
make their field cards available through the town clerks when the assessors are
not available.
40. It is concluded that the policies of other assessors are
not relevant to whether the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act.
41. The respondent also maintains that she did not violate the
Freedom of Information Act because the same information was available from
other records in the custody of the town clerk.
42. It is found, however, that not all the information which
the complainants sought to inspect on the field cards was available from other
records in the custody of the town clerk.
43. It is also concluded that the availability of records from
other sources does not diminish the respondent's obligations to provide access
to all public records in her custody or control under the Freedom of
Information Act.
44. The respondent further maintains that she did not violate
the Freedom of Information Act because she acted in conformity with the policy
of the Goshen board of assessors.
45. It is concluded, however, pursuant to 1-19(a), G.S.,
that the policy of the Goshen board of assessors, to the extent that it
diminishes the rights of the public under 1-19(a), is null and void, and
is not a valid defense to a failure to comply with the Freedom of Information
Act.
46. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated
1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide, promptly upon request, an
opportunity to inspect the requested records.
47. The Commission notes that compliance with the dictates of
the right to promptly inspect public records is measured on a case-by-case
basis, and requires the respondent to be sensitive to the particular needs of
document requesters, rather than apply hard and fast rules without exception.
Docket #FIC
92-235 Page
6
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 1-19(a), G.S.
2. The respondent shall cause a copy of the final decision
in this matter to be posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for a period of
thirty (30) days.
Approved by
Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March
10, 1993.
Debra
L. Rembowski
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC
92-235 Page
7
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:
Stuart Groten
and Stuart Lane Company
P.O. Box 132
Rocky Hill, CT
06067
Goshen Assesor
North Street
P.O. Box 54
Goshen, CT 06756
Debra
L. Rembowski
Acting
Clerk of the Commission