FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Dave Gilmore and Coalition
for Better Government,

 

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-486

Director, Office of Community Development,
City of Waterbury; and Office of Community
Development, City of Waterbury,

 

 

Respondents

March 8, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 17, 1999, at which time the complainants and the 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.                By letter dated September 8, 1999, to the respondent director, the complainants made a request for the following information:

 

a.       “funding approved or encumbered for Bonner Housing for the past three years by program year and amounts from HOME or other CD sources;

 

b.      funding approved and or encumbered for Mount Olive Senior Shuttle and Senior Center for the past three years by year and amount from CD or other sources from your department;

 

c.       any additional funding to other programs with the same principles [sic] named in Bonner Housing and/or Senior Shuttle program run at Mount Olive AM Church (list status of Bonner Housing or provide source documents for designation or certification of – profit, not for profit, 501c3, CHDO, ect.);

 

d.      funding approved and/or encumbered to LAE Associates for the past three years HOME and/or CD managed accounts (include all funds and/or checks made payable to Linda Evans in her consultant capacity on all accounts and draw downs for the past three years - don’t forget Waterbury OIC related activities also);

 

e.       Home Program description this current funding year and CHDO allocation limits;

 

f.        amount allocated/offered this program year from HOME Program to the city of Waterbury;

 

g.       a list of funding amounts for all projects approved this program year from Home Program projections for balance.

 

h.       a copy (RFP) request for proposals for the past three years for HOME Program including this current year as well;

 

i.         a copy of selection criteria, who was involved and grading approval documentation for projects this program year and the previous three years for HOME Program awards;

 

j.        information on how much Bonner houses sell for, the profit margin of these sales and how they are tracked/monitored, and the amount of the  reprogramming;

 

k.      a copy of monitoring reports for Bonner housing initiatives for the past three years by project and information on whether the unit recipients renters and buyers are low to moderate-income beneficiaries as defined by HOME;

 

l.         information regarding what percentage of HOME funding per year, to date, has been awarded and left over per year and whether the money has been returned.”

 

The complainants informed the respondents that if three years worth of records was not available, whatever records HUD required the respondents to maintain would be acceptable and that the respondent director should inform the complainants if more than 72 hours was needed to comply with their request.

 

3.    By letter dated September 13, 1999, the corporation counsel for the City of Waterbury responded to the complainant’s September 8, 1999, request letter confirming that it had been received, that the complainants’ request was being reviewed, and that a further response would be forthcoming.

 

4.    By letter dated and postmarked October 8, 1999, and filed on October 14, 1999 the complainants appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their request.

 

5.    Section 1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, 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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void. 

 

6.          Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

7.          It is found that the requested records, to extent they exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.]. 

 

8.          It is found that on November 5, 1999, the respondent director and the complainant Mr. Gilmore met regarding the complainants’ September 8, 1999 records request at which time the respondent director made available certain records and provided oral explanations relevant to the complainants’ request.

 

9.          At the hearing on this matter, the complainants alleged that the respondents failed to provide all of the requested records and that the oral explanations provided by the respondent director did not comply with their request for records. 

 

10.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainants conceded that there was miscommunication between the complainants and the respondents that delayed compliance with the September 8, 1999, request and that this appeal does not include a complaint regarding the time frame in which the respondents complied with the request. 

 

11.      With respect to the complainants’ request described in paragraphs 2a and 2l, it is found that, at the time of the complainants’ request, no document existed that would have been responsive thereto; however, the respondent director created a document containing the information requested by the complainants and provided a copy of such to the complainants.

 

12.      With respect to the complainants’ request described in paragraphs 2b, 2d, 2f, 2g, 2h, and 2i, above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain any records responsive to the complainants’ request.

 

13.      With respect to the complainants’ request described in paragraph 2c, above, it is found that the respondent director gave the complainants past agreements, which are the only documents maintained by the respondents responsive to the complainants’ request.

 

14.      With respect to the complainants’ request described in paragraph 2e, above, it is found that the record responsive to the complainants’ request is a one paragraph summary which the respondent director made available to the complainants.

 

15.      With respect to the complainants’ request described in paragraph 2k, above, it is found that the respondent provided the complainants with a copy of the requested record. 

 

16.      It is found that the respondents provided the complainants with all records responsive to their request maintained by the respondents and thereby complied with the complainants’ records request.

 

17.      It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly 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 complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

March 8, 2000.

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

 

Dave Gilmore and Coalition for Better Government

PO Box 11444

Waterbury, CT  06703

 

 

Director, Office of Community Development, City of Waterbury; and Office of Community Development, City of Waterbury

c/o Atty. Dan Shaban

Office of Corporation Counsel

236 Grand Street

Waterbury, CT  06702

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-486FD/mrb/03/10/00