FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
| Christine Uljua, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-497 |
|
First Selectman, Town of Woodbury; and |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
April 26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 16, 2000, at which time the complainant 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., [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S].
2. It is found that Chris Wood, an employee of the respondent commission, created a report relating to application #962, which was pending before the respondent commission [hereinafter “the report”], and presented it to such commission at the commission’s meeting of September 14, 1999. It is further found that, at such time, such commission agreed to keep the report as a draft and discuss it at its meeting of October 12, 1999.
3. It is found that, by letter dated September 20, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent selectman provide her with a copy of the report.
4. It is found that, by letter dated September 23, 1999, the respondent selectman denied the request described in paragraph 3, above, contending that the respondent commission had determined that the report was a draft, and that the commission would withhold it from the public until its members had discussed it.
5. It is found that, at a September 28, 1999 meeting of the respondent commission, the complainant requested that the report be made available for inspection. It is further found that, at such time, the respondent commission denied such request and informed the complainant that the report would be made public after it had been discussed by such commission.
6. It is found that the respondent commission discussed, but did not take action on, application #962, referenced in paragraph 2, above, at its meeting of October 12, 1999. It is further found that the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the report at such meeting, or shortly thereafter. It is also found that the respondent commission discussed the report, and acted on application #962, referenced in paragraph 2, above, at its meeting of November 2, 1999.
7. By letter dated and filed on October 20, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying her a copy of, and access to, the report, as described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above. By such letter, the complainant also alleged that the respondent commission violated the FOI Act with respect to its meeting of June 15, 1999. However, at the hearing in this matter, the complainant withdrew her complaint insofar as it related to the June 15, 1999, meeting, since the complaint was filed more than 30 days after the date of such meeting, and this commission lacks jurisdiction to consider allegations pertaining to the June 15, 1999, meeting, pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S. [formerly §1-21i(b)(1), G.S.].
8. It is found that the complainant no longer seeks a copy of the report, but rather a determination as to whether the denials described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, were in violation of the FOI Act.
9. It is found that the report is a public record within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(5), G.S]
10. 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 a right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
11. The respondents contend, that, at the times of the requests described in paragraphs 3 and 5, above, the report was exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §§1-210(b)(1) and 1-210(c)(1), G.S. [formerly §§1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(c)(1), G.S.]
12. Section 1-210(b)(1), G.S., [formerly §1-19(b)(1), G.S.] permits an agency to withhold from disclosure “preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
13. Section 1-210(c)(1), G.S., [formerly §1-19(c)(1), G.S.] further provides that notwithstanding the provisions of §1-210(b)(1), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(1), G.S.], disclosure shall be required of:
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
14. It is found that the respondents failed to prove that, at the times of the requests described in paragraphs 3 and 5, above, they had determined that the public interest in withholding the report clearly outweighed the public interest in its disclosure.
15. It is further found that, at the times of the requests described in paragraphs 3 and 5, above, the report was a report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated and was not subject to revision prior to discussion among the members of the respondent commission, within the meaning of §1-210(c)(1), G.S. [formerly §1-19(c)(1), G.S.]
16. It is therefore concluded that the report was not exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §§1-210(b)(1) and 1-210(c)(1), G.S. [formerly §§1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(c)(1), G.S.], at the times of the requests described in paragraphs 3 and 5, above.
17. It is further concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], when they failed to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the report.
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 promptness provision of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
April 26, 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:
Christine
Uljua
17 Steeple
View Lane
Woodbury, CT
06798
First Selectman, Town of Woodbury; and Zoning Commission, Town of Woodbury
c/o Atty. Brian T. Henebry
Carmody & Torrance
PO Box 110
Waterbury, CT 06721
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-497FD/mrb/04/27/00