FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Raymond R. Baginski, Sr.,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-89

 

Southington Town Council,

 

                        Respondent                  November 9, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 30, 1994, 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.  It is found that on March 14, 1994, the complainant by letter dated March 13, 1994 made a request to the respondent for access to a list of commercial property assessments, and the schedules used to determine residential and commercial building and land values (hereinafter "requested records").

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent never responded to the the complainant's request.

 

            4.  Having failed to receive a response from the respondent, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated March 23, 1994, and filed with the Commission on March 25, 1994, alleging that the respondent had denied him access to the requested records.

 

            5.  It is found that by letters dated April 27 and May 6, 1994, the assessor of the town of Southington ("assessor") responded to the complainant's March 14, 1994 records request.

 

            6.  It is found that the assessor in his April 27, 1994 letter informed the complainant that no commercial property list existed, and that the existing 2017 records of commercially coded and multiple structure properties which he currently maintained in his office, could be copied and provided at a cost of $ .50 per page, which amount was required to be prepaid.  In addition, the assessor informed the complainant that the

 

Docket #FIC 94-89                             Page 2

 

requested schedules were available for inspection, however, a copy which consists of 420 pages could be provided at a cost of $ .50 per page, which amount was also required to be prepaid.

 

            7.  It is found that the complainant received the assessor's letters, described in paragraphs 5 and 6, above, but chose not to open such letters.

 

            8.  It is found that no list of commercial property assessments exist in the form requested by the complainant, and further, that the assessor's request for prepayment is authorized by 1-15(c), G.S.

 

            9.  However, 1-19(a), G.S., gives the public a right to inspect or copy records promptly.

 

            10.  In addition, 1-21i(a), G.S., requires that any denial of the right to inspect or copy records shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the records, in writing, within four business days of such request.

 

            11.  It is found that the respondent failed to respond to the complainant's records request promptly within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            12.  It is also found that the assessor's April 27, 1994 response, issued approximately six weeks after the complainant's request, was not prompt within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S., and does not comply with 1-21i(a), G.S.

 

            13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to respond to the complainant's request promptly.

 

            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) and 1-21i(a), G.S.

 

            2.  The Commission takes this opportunity to urge both parties to better communicate and co-operate in exercising their rights and responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 9, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-89                             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:

RAYMOND R. BAGINSKI, SR.

26 Salem Way

Southington, CT 06489

 

SOUTHINGTON TOWN COUNCIL

c/o John T. Nugent, Esq.

97 North Main Street

Southington, CT 06489

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission