FIC1996-538

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 7, 1997, at which time the complainants 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:

2. It is found that on October 7, 1996, the complainant Roberge went to the respondent’s office and requested access to inspect field cards.

3. It is further found that the complainant was permitted to inspect six field cards on October 7, 1996 but was denied access to inpect any additional field cards at that time.

4. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on October 18, 1996, the complainants appealed the respondent’s denial of access to the additional field cards requested on October 7, 1996.

5. It is found that the subject field cards are public records within the meaning of § § 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

. . . all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours….

7. It is found that it is the respondent’s policy and practice to limit the inspection of field cards by a requester to no more than six field cards per day.

8. It is further found that the respondent’s policy and practice described in paragraph 7, above, is in violation of § 1-19(a), G.S.

9. It is therefore concluded that the respondent’s implementation of the policy described in paragraph 7, above, and consequent failure to provide the complainants with prompt access to the additional field cards requested on October 7, 1997 violated the provisions of § 1-19(a), G.S.

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

1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with access to inspect any field cards requested promptly, during regular office or business hours.

2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements set forth in § 1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 23, 1997.

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:
Ronald J. Roberge and Wescon Appraisal Company
P.O. Box 838
Winsted, CT 06098

Assessor, Town of Torrington
c/o Albert G. Vasko, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
140 Main Street
Torrington, CT 06790

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC 1996-538/FD/eal/beh08011997

In the Matter of a Complaint by	FINAL DECISION
Ronald J. Roberge and Wescon Appraisal Company,
Complainants
against	Docket #FIC 1996-538
Assessor, Town of Torrington,
Respondent	July 23, 1997