FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Richard B. Walker,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-167
Town Planner, Town of East Hampton; and Planning and Building Department, Town of East Hampton,
		Respondents	September 27, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 9, 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.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint dated March 29, 2000 and filed on April 4, 2000, the complainant appealed to the commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a true copy of the audiotapes of a meeting held on February 28, 2000.

 

            3.  It is found that on February 28, 2000, the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency held a meeting, which meeting was attended by the complainant (hereinafter “meeting”).

 

            4.  It is found that the meeting was tape-recorded.

 

5.  It is found that on February 29, 2000, the complainant visited the respondents’ offices and requested a copy of the tape, with which he was provided.  Upon listening to the copy, the complainant realized that such copy was not a complete recording, in that, portions of the meeting proceedings were not on the tape.

 

6.  The complainant then made a second request for a copy of the tape, however, again upon listening to the copy received, the complainant realized that such copy was also incomplete. 

7.  It is found that on March 14, 2000, the complainant made a third request for a copy of the tape, this time directing his request to the clerk of the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency, who is also the secretary of the respondent planning and building department (“clerk”). 

 

8.  It is found that the clerk listened to the original tape-recording of the meeting before making another copy for the complainant.  Upon listening, the clerk realized that the original tape contained gaps and that portions of the meeting proceedings were not on such original.  The clerk informed the complainant that the original tape had a problem and that if a third copy was made for him, it would be no different from the copies already provided to him.

 

9.    It is found that the only tape of the meeting that the respondents have is the original, which the clerk listened to, and from which the copies already provided to the complainant were made.  No tape of the meeting exists that is being withheld by the respondents from the complainant.

 

10.  Unfortunately, it is found that the tape recorder used at the meeting malfunctioned.  It is understandable that the complainant is annoyed as certain comments made at the meeting are not on the tape.

 

            11.  However, the FOI Act does not require that an agency make a tape recording of its meetings.  It requires that an agency provide a copy of any tape recording of a meeting, which it has, upon receiving a request.

 

12.  It is also found that there is no evidence to suggest that the tape in question and the tape recording equipment were inappropriately tampered with, or that the respondents in any way tried to preclude the complainant from obtaining a copy of the tape he requested.

 

            13.  In light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

 

            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 September 27, 2000.

 

 

_________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

 

Richard B. Walker

69 Collie Brook Road

East Hampton, CT  06424

 

Town Planner, Town of East Hampton;

and Planning and Building Department,

Town of East Hampton

c/o Atty. Duncan Forsyth

Halloran & Sage LLP

One Goodwin Square

Hartford, CT  06103-4303

 

 

__________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC2000-167FD/mes/10/05/2000