FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

C.J. Mozzochi,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-143

 

Richard S. Borden, Jr., Glastonbury Town Manager,

 

                        Respondent                  April 14, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 29, 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.  On March 28, 1992, the complainant made a written request for a copy of all invoices submitted to the Town of Glastonbury (hereinafter "Town"), by William Rogers (hereinafter "town attorney"), or his law firm, from January 1988 through  March 28, 1992, pertaining to matters involving the complainant.

 

            3.  By letter of complaint dated April 24, 1992 and filed on April 27, 1992, the complainant appealed to this Commission. 

 

            4.  By letter dated April 28, 1992, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant's records request but declined to comply.

 

            5.  Both the complainant and the respondent requested the imposition of civil penalties against each other, in accordance with 1-21i(b), G.S.; in addition, the respondent requested that the Commission issue findings as set forth in 52-568(b), G.S.

 

            6.  The respondent does not dispute that the Town has provided the complainant with copies of town attorney invoices in the past.  However, at the hearing the respondent claimed that the principal purpose of the request was to harass the respondent.

 

Docket #FIC 92-143                           Page 2

 

            7.  It is found that subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the respondent generated a computer printout of charges submitted to the Town by the town attorney for the period in question (hereinafter "printout").

 

            8.  The respondent offered the printout to the complainant at the October 13, 1992 hearing.

 

            9.  The complainant refused to accept the printout as satisfactory compliance with his request.

 

            10.  It is found that although the complainant is harassing the respondent, the respondent failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure in accordance with any provision of 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 respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the town attorney invoice records, more fully described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.

 

            2.         Within thirty (30) business days from the date of the notice of final decision in this case, the respondent shall retrieve the records at issue.

 

            3.         Prior to copying the requested records, the respondent may provide the complainant with an estimate of the copying costs and require prepayment of an estimated fee of ten dollars ($10.00) or more, in accordance with the provisions of 1-15(c), G.S.

 

            4.  If such prepayment is requested and provided, the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the records at issue within thirty (30) business days of the date of receipt of payment of the copying fee.

 

            5.  The Commission deplores the harassing tactics of the complainant and while the Commission does not encourage or condone the harassment of the respondent by this complainant, the Commission cannot acquiesce in the denial of public records where the respondent has failed to also prove that the complaint is frivolous and unreasonable within the meaning of 1-21i(b), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 92-143                           Page 3

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 14, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-143                           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:

DR. C. J. MOZZOCHI

Box 60

South Glastonbury, CT 06073

 

RICHARD S. BORDEN, JR., GLASTONBURY TOWN MANAGER

c/o William S. Rogers, Esq./ Susan Quinn Esq.

Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn

CityPlace - 35th Floor

Hartford, CT 06103-3488

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission