FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Wayne Credit,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1997-094
Water Pollution Control Authority,
Town of Ledyard,
Respondent December 10, 1997
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 8, 1997, at
which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, and presented
testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The Commission’s briefing
schedule allowed the final brief to be filed on October 6, 1997.
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 March 4, 1997, the
complainant requested that the respondent provide him with a copy of “the
revised assessments for the Gales Ferry water project” with seven enumerated
streets removed (the “requested record”).
3. By letter dated March 11, 1997, the
respondent declined to provide the requested record, stating among other
points, that the assessment list was a “draft/working document” which could not
be finalized until project completion.
4. By letter dated March 27, 1997, and filed
with the Commission on March 31, 1997, the complainant appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information
(“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with a copy of the requested record which
was “in his computer”.
5. Section 1-19a(a), G.S., provides in
pertinent part:
Any
public agency which maintains public records in a
computer
storage system shall provide, to any person making
a
request pursuant to this chapter, a copy of any nonexempt
data
contained in such records, properly identified, on paper,
disk,
tape or any other electronic storage device or medium
requested
by the person, if the agency can reasonably make
such
copy or have such copy made. [emphasis added]
6. The respondent contends that the requested
record is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §§1-19(b)(1)
and (b)(7), G.S.
7. Section 1-19(b)(1), G.S., states that
nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:
preliminary
drafts and notes provided the public agency
has
determined that the public interest in withholding such
documents
clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure….
8. Additionally, with reference to preliminary
drafts and notes exempted from mandatory disclosure by §1-19(b)(1),
G.S., §1-19(c),
G.S., provides in relevant part:
Notwithstanding
the provisions of subdivisions (1) and (16)
of
subsection (b) of this section, disclosure shall be required
of
(1) interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory
opinions,
recommendations or any report comprising part
of
the process by which governmental decisions and policies
are
formulated, except disclosure shall not be required of a
preliminary
draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member
of
the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision
prior
to submission to or discussion among the members of
such
agency.…
9. Finally, §1-
19(b)(7), G.S., states that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to
require disclosure of:
the
contents of real estate appraisals, engineering or feasibility
estimates and
evaluations made for or by an agency relative to
the acquisition of property or to prospective public supply and construction
contracts, until such time as all of the property has been acquired
or all proceedings or
transactions have been terminated or abandoned, provided the law of eminent
domain shall not be affected by this provision….[emphasis added]
10. It is found that the requested record is, in
fact, a spreadsheet in the personal computer assigned for use to the town
engineer.
11. It is found that the town engineer showed
the requested record to the complainant on his computer screen, but that the
requested record was never submitted to any other member of the agency for
discussion.
12. It is found that the requested record was “a
quick thumbnail sketch”, the computer equivalent of notes made on a notepad. It
was prepared in just three hours, for the sole purpose of satisfying the
professional curiosity of the town engineer who was acting entirely on his own
initiative, subsequent to a discussion with the complainant at a public
meeting. The town engineer was not asked or directed to generate the requested
record by the respondent or any member or staff member thereof.
13. It is found that the requested record is
based upon: a) preliminary estimates of cost data (produced with a manual
estimating device, rather than data supplied by the consulting engineer of the
project); and also b) preliminary estimates concerning which specific
properties would be eliminated as a result of removing the seven enumerated
streets. Therefore, it is found that the requested record was a memorandum that
was “subject to revision” prior to submission to other members of the agency. Van
Norstrand v. Freedom of Information Commission, 211 Conn. 339 (1989).
14. It is found that the requested record, as a
list of projected assessments for individual taxpayers (based upon the removal
of certain streets from a water project), is a different, more preliminary
record than one showing the median change in assessments for all taxpayers that
would be estimated to result. A list of projected assessments for individual
taxpayers is similar to the “survey data” found to be exempt in Van
Norstrand, op. cit.
15. It is found that the respondent has
reasonably determined that, if the requested record were disclosed, it could be
considered a final report approved by the respondent, and therefore, that the
public interest in withholding the requested records clearly outweighs the
public interest in its disclosure.
16. It is found that the respondent was at the
time of the request set forth at paragraph 2, above, contemplating prospective
public supply and construction contracts for water and that all the proceedings
or transactions in connection with the prospective contracts had not been
terminated or abandoned.
17. It is concluded that the requested record is
a classic case of “a preliminary draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member of
the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission
to or discussion among the members of such agency”, and therefore that the
requested record is exempt from mandatory disclosure under §1-19(b)(1),
G.S.
18. Notwithstanding the fact that the town
engineer showed the requested record to the complainant on his computer screen,
it is further concluded that the test set forth at §1-19(c),
G.S., is whether a record “is subject to revision prior to submission to or
discussion among the members of such agency” [emphasis added], and
because the requested record was never submitted to members of the respondent
agency, it is not subject to mandatory disclosure.
19. It is also concluded that the requested
record is a feasibility estimate and evaluation made by an agency relative to
“prospective public supply and construction contracts”, and therefore, that the
requested record is also exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(7),
G.S.
20. It is therefore concluded that the
respondent did not violate §§1-19(a)
and 1-15, G.S., by failing to make the requested records available.
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
December 10, 1997.
_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:
Wayne Credit
1550 Route 12, Apt. 2
Gales Ferry, CT 06335
Water Pollution Control Authority, Town of
Ledyard
c/o Joseph B. Mathieu
93 Oak Streeet
Hartford, CT 06106-1552
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-094/FD/tcg/12101997