FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Susan C. Ray,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1995-400
Bruce Gresczyk, New Hartford
First Selectman; Linda Goff,
Treasurer, Town of New Hartford,
and Barbara Schaffer, Bookkeeper,
Respondents July 24, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 18, 1996, at
which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within
the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed with this
Commission on November 17, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondents
violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by
denying her copies of the town's bank/investment statements for the entire
period of fiscal year 1993-1994 and by providing her with bank/investment
statements for fiscal year 1994-1995 containing duplications of unnecessary
material intended to increase the final cost to her.
3. It is found that by letter dated October 25,
1995, the complainant requested of the respondent first selectman copies of
"ALL (emphasis added) bank and investment statements for fiscal
year 1994-1995 that have interest income in the aggregate of $110,000.00"
and also "all bank and investment statements for fiscal year 1993-1994
that have interest income in the aggregate of $37,566.00".
Docket #FIC1995-400 Page
2
4. The records identified in paragraphs 2 and
3, above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
5. It is found that in response to the
complainant's request and within four business days, the respondent first
selectman, in conjunction with the town bookkeeper, made contact with the
complainant for clarification of her request and then provided to her copies of
documents approximately two inches thick at a cost of $154.00.
6. It is found that the two inch thick stack of
documents provided to the complainant consisted of the raw data needed to
answer the complainant's inquiry for fiscal year 1994-1995, and that this
information had not yet been distilled due to the fact that an independent
audit had not yet been conducted for that fiscal year.
7. At the hearing into this matter the
complainant maintained that she still hadn't received the records requested for
fiscal year 1993-1994.
8. It is also found that when the town
bookkeeper telephoned the complainant on Friday, October 27, 1995 concerning
her request, the bookkeeper explained that an independent audit had already
been conducted for fiscal year 1993-1994, and that two specific pages from the
forty page audit report contained the relevant information sought by the
complainant in distilled form. The
bookkeeper asked the complainant whether she preferred all raw data for fiscal
year 1993-1994, which would cost an additional approximate $150.00, or whether
the two-page audit excerpt would be satisfactory to the complainant.
9. It is found that the respondent provided the
two-page audit excerpt for fiscal year 1993-1994 to the complainant at the
complainant's election.
10. It is found that the bank records provided
to the complainant were necessary for full and complete disclosure of the
interest information sought.
11. It is accordingly found that although the
two-inch thick stack of records provided to the complainant included some bank
documents that contained redundant account information, the respondent first
selectman did not in fact issue duplicate copies of records to the complainant.
12. It is therefore concluded that the
respondent first selectman neither denied the complainant copies of public
records nor attempted to increase the complainant's cost of public records in
violation of any provision of the FOI Act.
Docket #FIC1995-400 Page
3
13..At
the hearing into this matter, the respondents moved to dismiss the instant
complaint against the respondents treasurer and bookkeeper, to whom no request
for public records was actually made under the facts of this case.
14. The respondents' motion identified in
paragraph 13, above, is herein granted.
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. In light of the evidence presented in this
case, this Commission strongly urges the complainant to review §1-21i(b)(2),
G.S., outlining the prohibition against and penalties for the filing of
frivolous and harassing complaints.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
July 24, 1996.
__________________________
Doris
V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
fic1995-400/fd/mwp/07311996
Docket # FIC 1995-400 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:
Susan
C. Ray
101
Behrens Road
New
Hartford, CT 06057
Bruce Gresczyk, New Hartford First
Selectman
Linda Goff, Treasurer, Town of New
Hartford
Barbara Schaffer, Bookkeeper,
c/o Atty. Richard L. Street
Carmody & Torrance
50 Leavenworth Street
P.O. Box 110
Waterbury, CT 06721-1110
__________________________
Doris
V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission