FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Robert Fromer,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-8

 

New London Director of Law,

 

                                Respondent                          October 25, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 14, 1995, 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 Commission takes administrative notice of the record and decisions in contested cases docket #FIC 92-71, Robert Fromer v. New London Director of Law, aff'd, Londregan v. FOIC, Memo. of Dec. No. CV930526105 S, July 13, 1994, Teller, J., and #FIC 93-55, Robert Fromer v. New London Director of Law, aff'd in part, Londregan v. FOIC, Memo. of Dec. No. CV940529345 S, July 13, 1994, Teller, J.

 

                2.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                3.  By letter of complaint dated January 5, 1995 and filed with the Commission on January 9, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to maintain public records in a place that complies with the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                4.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                                Each ...[public] agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located....

 

Docket #FIC 95-8                                     Page 2

 

                5.  It is found that the respondent maintains a regular office or place of business at 38 Huntington Street, New London, Connecticut.

 

                6.  It is found that the Huntington Street location, described in paragraph 5, above, was designated the respondent's official place of business by resolution number 090694-3 of the New London City Council.

 

                7.  It is found that the respondent maintains public records at its place of business, which is generally open to the public Monday through Friday between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm.

 

                8.  It is found that the respondent has not denied the complainant access to any public records requested.

 

                9.  The complainant contends, however, that 1-19(a), G.S., requires that the respondent maintain its public records at the town clerk's office or in a building which is publicly owned or leased.  He contends further, that the respondent's place of business, in order to meet the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S., must comply with certain fire safety, handicapped-accessible and public records administration standards.

 

                10.  It is concluded that 1-19(a), G.S. does not require that the respondent maintain its records at the town clerk's office if the respondent has a regular office or place of business.

 

                11.  It is also concluded that nothing in 1-19(a), G.S., requires that the respondent's regular office or place of business be publicly owned or leased.  Neither does 1-19(a), G.S., indicate any fire safety, handicapped-accessible or public records administration requirements.

 

                12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by maintaining its records at its regular office or place of business, identified in paragraph 5, above.

 

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

 

                1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

                2.  Although the Commission has no jurisdiction to enforce fire safety, handicapped-accessible or public records administration laws, it urges the respondent, in the interest of the safe-keeping and proper maintainance of public records to contact the State Public Records Administrator to apprise himself and employees as to the appropriate record management practices and to ensure compliance with the state's public

 

Docket #FIC 95-8                                      Page 3

 

records retention statutes.  In addition, the Commission urges that the respondent ensure compliance with all handicapped-accessible laws.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-8                                 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:

Robert Fromer

281 Gardner Avenue

New London, CT 06320

 

New London Director of Law

c/o Thomas Londregan, Esq.

Conway, Londregan & McNamara

38 Huntington Street

P.O. Box 1351

New London, CT 06320

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission