FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Herbert Latournes, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 1999-459 |
|
|
Marvin
Smith, Tax Collector, Chalker |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 28, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on April 17, 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 on
September 3, 1999, the complainant made an oral request to the respondent tax
collector to inspect “the case file on Chalker Beach Association v.
Herbert Latournes dated November 2, 1994 to January 10, 1995”
3.
By letter dated
September 22, 1999 and filed on September 27, 1999, the complainant appealed
to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request as described
in paragraph 2, above.
4.
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 inspect such records promptly during regular
office or business hours . . . 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.”
5. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
6. It is found that the complainant made his request to inspect the requested records via telephone to Mr. Smith (who was hired to work for the treasurer of the respondent association and is not the custodian of the requested records) at Mr. Smith’s home.
7. It is found that all of the requested records are maintained at the office of the respondent association and that the complainant is aware of this fact.
8. It is found that the complainant has been made aware, and is aware, of the respondent association’s office hours, but failed to appear at the office of the respondent association during regular office or business hours to inspect the requested records.
9. 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.].
10. At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that the complainant has filed this appeal with this Commission for the sole purpose of harassing the respondents and requested that it be found that the appeal was taken frivolously and without reasonable grounds and that a civil penalty be levied against the complainant.
11. Section 1-206(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-21i(b)(2), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
“[i]f the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, after such person has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing . . . the commission may, in its discretion, impose against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.”
12. It is found that due to circumstances unrelated to this complaint, the relationship between the complainant and the members of the board of the respondent association is, at best, strained.
13. It is also found that the complainant has asked for and received copies of the requested records on several prior occasions and that the records have not changed since that time.
14. It is further found that the complainant’s failure to go to the respondent association’s office during its regular office or business hours to inspect the requested records, and his statement at the hearing on this matter that he had “nothing else to do” and therefore had time to take verbatim notes on every conversation he had with members of the board of the respondent association, gives the appearance that the complainant is using the Commission and its appeal process to harass the respondents.
15. It is also found that the complainant has taken this appeal frivolously and without reasonable grounds.
16. However, the Commission, in its discretion, declines to impose a civil penalty, at this time, against the complainant in this case, as requested by the respondents.
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.
2. The Commission strongly cautions the complainant against filing any further appeals of this nature as such will warrant the imposition of a civil penalty.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
June 28, 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:
Herbert Latournes
Five Beach Road West
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
Marvin
Smith, Tax Collector, Chalker Beach Improvement Association, Inc.;
and Chalker Beach Improvement Association, Inc.,
c/o Atty. Joseph C. Morelli
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone and Morelli
461 Farmington Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour