FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Andrew Gorosko and The Bee Publishing Co., Inc.,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-126

 

Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  October 27, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 16, 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.         It is found that by letter dated April 20, 1993 ("April request"), the complainants requested a copy of a report filed with the respondent by a New York consulting firm ("development plan").

 

            3.         It is found that by letter dated April 26, 1993, the respondent denied the April request, and cited 1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(c), G.S., as the basis for the denial.

 

            4.         By letter of complaint dated May 2, 1993, and filed with the Commission on May 4, 1993, the complainants appealed the respondent's denial.

 

            5.         It is found that on or about May 7, 1993, the respondent provided the complainants with access to the first revision of the requested development plan, and complainant Gorosko made a copy of the document.

 

            6.         There is no dispute that the development plan is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 93-126                           Page Two

 

            7.         It is found that the development plan is a compilation of information provided by consultants and the respondent's staff.

 

            8.         It is found that the original development plan was distributed to members of the respondent commission for their review and comment, and in order to allow them to correct existing errors and omissions in the development plan.

 

            9.         It is found that the chairman of the respondent commission believed that disclosure of the development plan at the time of the request, and while it contained errors and omissions, would not have been in the public interest.  After conferring with legal counsel the chairman declined to disclose the development plan to the complainants.

 

            10.       Section 1-19(b)(1), G.S., provides in pertinent part that disclosure shall not be required of preliminary drafts or notes "...provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure."

 

            11.       However, 1-19(b)(1), G.S., is further clarified by 1-19(c)(1), G.S., which states that:

 

            Nothwithstanding the provisions of [1-19(b)(1), G.S.], disclosure shall be required of (1) interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory opinions, recommendations or any report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated, except disclosure shall not be required of a preliminary draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member of the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of such agency, ...

 

            12.       It is found that the development plan is a voluminous and complicated report, resulting from a collaborative effort, and not a "memorandum prepared by a staff member" within the meaning of 1-19(c)(1), G.S.

 

            13.       It is found that the development plan resulted from a process of planning and zoning policy formulation spanning approximately two years.

 

            14.       It is further found that the contributions to, and comments about the evolving development plan were discussed at the respondent's meetings and became the basis for decisions about, and revisions to the development plan.

 

Docket #FIC 93-126                           Page Three

 

            It is therefore concluded that the development plan is a report comprising part of the process by which the respondent's planning and zoning decisions are being formulated, and the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide promptly upon request a copy of the original development plan.

 

            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 promptness requirement contained in 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 27, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-126                           Page Four

 

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:

Mr. Andrew Gorosko

The Bee Publishing Co., Inc.

5 Church Hill Road

P.O. Box 5503

Newtown, CT 06470-5503

 

Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission

c/o Sharon F. Bradley, Esq.

Cohen & Wolf, P.C.

1115 Broad Street

P.O. Box 1821

Bridgeport, CT 06602

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission