FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Ethan Book, Jr.,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-189

 

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority,

 

                                Respondent                          April 24, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 25, 1996, 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 dated April 21, 1995, supplemented by letter dated May 22, 1995, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with:

 

                (a)           a certified copy of the minutes of a CRRA board meeting held on April 16, 1985;

 

                (b)           certified copies of two legal opinions referred to in the minutes of a CRRA board meeting held on April 19, 1983, which indicate that CRRA has the authority to redevelop a project in Bridgeport; and

 

                (c)           a copy of the "Anderson Report" referred to in the minutes of a CRRA board meeting held on April 19, 1983.

 

                3.  Under cover letter dated April 24, 1995, the respondent provided the complainant with a certified copy of the April 16, 1985 CRRA board meeting minutes, identified in paragraph 2(a), above, but indicated that it would need additional time to respond to the requests delineated in paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c), above, since those documents were stored in an off-site archives location.

 

#FIC 95-189                                           Page 2

 

                4.  By letter dated May 2, 1995, the respondent notified the complainant that it was unable to locate either the requested legal opinions or the Anderson Report, described more specifically in paragraphs 2(b) and 2(c), above.

 

                5.  Having failed to receive all of the requested records, by letter dated June 2, 1995, postmarked June 3, 1995 and filed June 5, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.

 

                6.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent made a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, because the complainant's appeal was not filed or postmarked within 30 days of the respondent's May 2, 1995 letter, described in paragraph 4, above.

 

                7.  The undersigned hearing officer denied the respondent's motion to dismiss, finding that the complainant's supplemental letter of request dated May 22, 1995, which the respondent never acknowledged or responded to, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Commission.

 

                8.  It is found that prior to its May 2, 1995 response to the complainant, the respondent:  (1) thoroughly searched its on-site and off-site office files for the requested records; and (2) contacted two private attorneys who had served as general and bond counsel in 1985 to determine if they had the written legal opinions sought by the complainant.

 

                9.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain either the legal opinions or the Anderson Report sought by the complainant, as identified in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b), above; and was informed by the private attorneys contacted that the requested legal opinions do not exist, and were most likely oral opinions.

 

                10.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to provide records which it does not maintain, and which may never have existed.

 

                11.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the complainant for the filing of a frivolous appeal.

 

                12.  It is found that the complainant's sole reason for proceeding with the hearing on this matter was to question the respondent under oath concerning its replies to his records request.

 

#FIC 95-189                                           Page 3

 

                13.  The Commission, in its discretion, declines to schedule this matter for a further hearing on whether a civil penalty should be imposed against the complainant.

 

                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.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-189                                             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:

Ethan Book, Jr.

P.O. Box 1385

Fairfield, CT 06430

 

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority

c/o Carl R. Nasto, Esq.

179 Allyn Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission