FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In
the Matter of a Complaint by Final
Decision
Blaine W. Buck,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1996-014
Town Planner, Town of
Somers,
Respondent October
16, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 10, 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 of complaint dated January 21, 1996, and filed with the
Commission on January 23, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondent
violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him access to information
pertaining to his application for a two-lot resubdivision, (hereinafter
"application").
3.
It is found that by letters dated December 28, 1995 and January 7, 1996,
the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with access to the
following information:
a. the exact section and the complete
definition of the zoning regulations referred to in the respondent's December
21, 1995 memoranda concerning the complainant's application; and
b. the effective and/or amended date the
regulations referred to in paragraph 3a., above, were adopted.
Docket
#FIC 1996-014 Page
2
4.
It is found that on January 24, 1996, one day before the planning and
zoning meeting at which the subject resubdivision application was to be heard,
the respondent provided the complainant with a response to his request.
5.
The complainant contends that the January 24, 1996 response, as
described in paragraph 4, above was untimely provided and not responsive to his
request.
6.
Section 1-15(a), G.S., provides that[a]ny person applying in writing
shall receive, promptly upon request … any public record.”
7.
Section 1-18a(d), G.S., defines public record as:
any
recorded data or information
relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used,
received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded,
printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method. [Emphasis
added.]
8.
It is found that the January 24, 1996 response is a public record within
the meaning of §1-18a(d),
G.S., and that, under the circumstances of the case, such response was not provided to the complainant
“promptly upon request,” within the meaning of §1-15(a), G.S.
9.
It is also found, however, that the January 24, 1996 response was
responsive to the complainant’s request.
10.
It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-15(a),
G.S., by not promptly providing the complainant with the requested public
record upon request.
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 comply strictly with the provisions of §1-15(a),
G.S.
Docket
#FIC 1996-014 Page
3
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of October 16, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket
#FIC 1996-014 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:
Blaine W. Buck
48 Blue Ridge Mountain Road
Somers, CT 06071
Town Planner, Town of
Somers
c/o Carl T. Landolina, Esq.
487 Spring Street, Suite Two
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission