FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

William J. Goggin, III,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-354

 

East Hartford Town Council,

 

                        Respondent                  July 28, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 29, 1993, 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 dated November 18, 1992, and filed with the Commission on November 19, 1992, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to comply with his requests for transcripts of the audiotapes of the respondent's August 24, 1992 Personnel Subcommittee meeting (hereinafter August meeting), and the respondent's September 15, 1992 special meeting (hereinafter September meeting).

 

            3.  It is found that by memorandum dated November 12, 1992, the complainant requested "[a transcript] of the [September] meeting."

 

            4.  It is found that by memorandum dated November 12, 1992, the respondent chairperson informed the complainant that while a transcript of the September meeting would not be provided, the respondent would provide him with a copy of the audiotapes of the September meeting so that he or his clerical staff could make a transcription.

 

            5.  It is found that by memorandum dated November 13, 1992, the complainant requested "[a transcript] of the [August] meeting."

 

Docket #FIC 92-354                           Page 2

 

            6.  It is found that the respondent declined to provide the complainant with a transcript of the August meeting, but offered to provide the complainant with a copy of the audiotape of the August meeting.

 

            7.  It is found that the complainant declined the respondent's offer to provide copies of the audiotapes of the August and September meetings.

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with copies of its minutes of the August and September meetings.

 

            9.  The respondent concedes that its staff members have the ability to transcribe audiotapes of the respondent council's meetings.

 

            10.  The respondent also concedes that it has expeditiously prepared transcripts of its meetings at the request of any respondent council member.

 

            11.  Section 1-15(a), G.S., states in relevant part:

 

            Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record. . . .  if any person applies for a transcription of a public record, the fee for such transcription shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency.

 

            12.  It is found that the audiotapes of the August and September meetings from which transcripts could be prepared, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            13.  It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly prepare and provide the complainant with the transcripts that he requested.

 

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

 

            1.  The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with transcripts of its August and September meetings as identified in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.

 

Docket #FIC 92-354                           Page 3

 

            2.  The complainant shall bear the cost of having the transcripts prepared.

 

            3.  In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, in accordance with the provisions of 1-15(c), G.S., the respondent may require the complainant to prepay the fee for preparation of the transcripts if such fee is estimated to be ten dollars ($10.00) or more.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 28, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-354                           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:

William J. Goggin, III

Town of East Hartford

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

East Hartford Town Council

c/o Carol Guy

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission