FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                FINAL DECISION

 

John W. Pillar,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC1996-089

 

Ronald LeBlanc, Town Manager, Town
of Groton; Sal Pandolfo, Director of Finance,

Town of Groton; Douglas R. Ackerman,

Personnel Director, Town of Groton; and

Town of Groton,

 

                        Respondent(s)                                                  December 18, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 9, 1996, at which time the complainant and respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         It is found that by letter dated February 24, 1996 (“February request”), the complainant requested that the respondent town manager provide him with the following information:

 

(a)  the authority or authorization under which a private investigator was hired;

(b)  the reason the respondent town manager was terminated from his last job;

(c)  a copy of the respondent town manager’s application for his
current position, and letters of recommendation and other materials submitted with the application;


(d)  a copy of all notes or writings made at the executive session; and

(e)  the name of the employee reprimanded for improper telephone use, and a copy of the letter of reprimand issued to that employee.

 

            3.         It is found that by letter dated February 29, 1996, the respondent town manager acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s February request and advised him that he was extremely busy with budget preparation deadlines and other special projects, and would attempt to respond to his request as soon as time permitted.

 

            4.         It is also found that by letter dated March 2, 1996, the complainant asked the respondent town manager for more immediate compliance with his February request, and by letters of the same date requested of the respondent director of finance and respondent personnel director the information described in paragraphs 2(e) and 2(c), respectively of the findings, above.

 

            5.         It is found that by letter dated March 5, 1996, the respondent town manager advised the complainant that: (a) the information described in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the findings, above, does not constitute a request for records and therefore would not be provided; (b) the information described in paragraphs 2(c) and 2(e) of the findings, above, were enclosed with the letter; and (c) with respect to the information described in paragraph 2(d) of the findings, above, the complainant should identify the executive session to which he refers.

 

            6.         It is also found that the records described in paragraphs 2(c) and 2(e) of the findings, above, were not enclosed with the respondent town manager’s March 5, 1996 letter, but were provided after March 16, 1996, when the complainant made the respondent town manager’s secretary aware of the fact that his March 5, 1996 letter did not contain the enclosures referenced therein.

 

            7.         It is found that by letter to the complainant dated March 7, 1996, respondent director of finance denied the complainant’s request, as described in paragraph 2(e) of the findings, above, on the ground that the respondent town manager had already provided the requested records.

 

            8.         By letter of complaint dated March 16, 1996 and filed with this Commission on March 20, 1996, the complainant appealed the respondents’ failure to comply with his requests for information and requested the imposition of civil penalties against the individual respondents.

 

 

 

 

            9.         It is found that the information sought in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) of the findings, above, does not constitute a request for public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S., and it is therefore concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to order its disclosure as a violation of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            10.       It is further found that the information described in paragraph 2(d) of the findings, above, does not specify the date of the executive session or meeting at issue and therefore the respondent town manager did not violate §1-15(a), G.S., by requesting additional information in order to identify the requested records.

 

            11.       It is found, however, that the documents described in paragraphs 2(c) and 2(e) of the findings, above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            12.       It is concluded that the respondent town manager violated the provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the records described in paragraphs 2(c) and 2(e) of the findings, above.

 

            13.       It is also concluded that although the respondent director of finance believed that the respondent town manager provided the complainant with the records requested in the complainant’s March 2, 1996 letter, the respondent director of finance was not absolved of his duty under §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., to promptly provide the complainant with the requested records.

 

            14.       It is further concluded that the respondent personnel director violated the provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to comply with the complainant’s records request as set forth in his March 2, 1996 letter to the respondent personnel director.

 

 

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

            1.         Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 18, 1996.

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

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:

 

John W. Pillar

PO  Box 547

Groton, CT 06340

 

Ronald LeBlanc, Town Manager, Town of Groton; Sal Pandolfo, Director of Finance, Town of Groton; Douglas R. Ackerman, Personnel Director, Town of Groton; and Town of Groton

c/o  James F. Brennan, Esq.

PO  Box 1591

New London, CT 06320

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC1996-089/FD/eal/122096