FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Robert Dietzko,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-105
Plainville Community
Development Coordinator,
Respondent March
27, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 7, 1996, at which time the complainant and respondent appeared
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 dated March 13, 1995, the complainant requested that he be provided with
transcriptions of the respondent's June 16, 1994 ("June meeting"),
and February 16, 1995 ("February meeting") meetings concerning the
rehabilitation of his property. The
complainant requested that all fees for the requested transcriptions be waived
pursuant to 1-15(d)(1), G.S.
3. By
letter of complaint dated April 4, 1995, and filed with this Commission on
April 6, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to comply
with his records request.
4. It
is found that the respondent held a June meeting to discuss the "Dietzko
Rehabilitation Project," and the meeting was tape-recorded.
5. It
is found that the meeting notes ("minutes") of the June meeting
indicate that the complainant attended the meeting and at that time asked the
respondent for a transcription of the June meeting.
Docket #FIC 95-105 Page
2
6. It
is found that at the June meeting the respondent informed the complainant that
a "transcript would be available and the [appropriate] fees charged."
7. It
is found that the audiotape of the June meeting was never transcribed.
8. It
is found that in January and February of 1995, the complainant again requested
transcriptions of the respondent's June and February meetings, free of charge.
9. It
is found that by letter dated January 27, 1995 the respondent provided the
complainant with a copy of the minutes of the June meeting but no
transcription.
10. It
is found under the facts and circumstances of this case that the respondent
should have prepared a transcript of the June meeting and made it available to
the complainant.
11. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by
failing to make a transcription of the June meeting available to the
complainant.
12. It
is found that the respondent hosted a February meeting to discuss the town's
possible exposure to civil liability stemming from the Dietzko Rehabilitation
Project.
13. It
is found that the February meeting was not tape-recorded.
14. It
is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-15 or 1-19(a),
G.S., when he did not provide the complainant with a transcription of the
February meeting because it was not tape-recorded.
15. Regarding
the complainant's claim of indigence, the respondent argues that the
complainant does not qualify as indigent for purposes of the application of
1-15(d)(1), G.S.
16. It
is found that the respondent failed to prove that either he or the Town of
Plainville has objective criteria, guidelines or standards to determine
indigency ("indigency standard"), or that such an indigency standard
was applied to the complainant.
17. The
respondent argues that he used his personal knowledge of the complainant and
his finances, and an examination of the complainant's 1992 federal income tax
return, as the basis for his determination that the complainant does not
qualify as indigent for purposes of the application of 1-15(d)(1), G.S.
Docket #FIC 95-105 Page
3
18. It is found that the respondent
failed to prove that the criteria for indigency that he used to analyze the
complainant's 1-15(d)(1), G.S., claim was reasonable and not arbitrarily
applied to the complainant.
19. It
is concluded that under the facts of this case the respondent violated
1-15(d)(1), G.S., in its application to the complainant.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. Forthwith
the respondent shall prepare or cause to be prepared a transcription of the
June meeting. The respondent shall bear
all costs of having the transcription made.
Once the transcript has been created the respondent shall provide a copy
to the complainant, free of charge.
2. The
respondent shall also provide an affidavit to this Commission attesting to his
compliance with paragraph 1 of this order, within ten days of said compliance.
3. Henceforth
the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S.
4. The
Commission suggests that the respondent develop and publish an objective and
reasonable indigency standard which should not be arbitrarily or unfairly
applied.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-105 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 Dietzko
160 Broad Street
Plainville, CT 06062
Plainville Community
Development Coordinator
c/o Robert A. Michalik, Esq.
Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik
& Lynch
P.O. Box 2950
New Britain, CT 06050-2950
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission