FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
John J. Cassidy, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-588 |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Respondent |
March 14, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 1, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated September 28, 2000 the complainant requested of the respondent access to inspect all items “that pertain to the 1987 Parking Agreement between the Town of Plainville and William A. Petit, Charles J. Petit, Richard Piotrowski, Stephen Piotrowski, Josephine A. Neri, and Robert A. Ziegler, Trustee.” The complainant then listed in his letter a number of items that he was interested in inspecting, but indicated that his request was not limited to those specified items.
3. It is found that shortly after receiving the complainant’s request, the respondent contacted the complainant by telephone and discussed it with him. The respondent asked the complainant to give him some time to locate responsive records. Thereafter, the respondent discussed the complainant’s request with the town’s director of finance because the respondent believed that most of the information enumerated by the complainant in his request letter and during his telephone discussion would be located in financial records in the director of finance’s custody. The respondent asked the director of finance to meet with the complainant and provide him access to the responsive records maintained by him.
4. It is found that the respondent again contacted the complainant by telephone on October 9, 2000 and asked him to come to town hall on October 11, 2000. It is found that the complainant went to the respondent’s office on that date but the respondent was not present. Although there is some dispute as to whether the respondent advised the complainant to meet with the director of finance, either during their telephone conversation or when the complainant arrived at the respondent’s office on October 11, 2000, it is found that the complainant did in fact meet with the director of finance on October 11, 2000 and reviewed certain records maintained by him. At some time while the complainant was meeting with the director of finance, the respondent arrived in the director of finance’s office and further discussed the matter with the complainant. The complainant indicated that he was still interested in obtaining certain ledger records from the director of finance and certain other records pertaining to the 1987 parking agreement from the respondent and asked whether he could return to further inspect records when they were available.
5. It is found that on October 18, 2000 the respondent again contacted the complainant by telephone and asked him to come to his office on October 20, 2000 to inspect additional records. On that date, the complainant met with the town’s community development director, who had been asked by the respondent to sit with the complainant, and reviewed a file that the respondent had located concerning the 1987 parking agreement (hereinafter “agreement file”).
6. By letter to the respondent dated October 23, 2000, the complainant stated that he still had not reviewed certain items from his September 28, 2000 request. The respondent replied by letter dated October 25, 2000 that he had provided the complainant, through the community development director and director of finance, with all of the information he had.
7. By letter dated and filed October 27, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had failed to comply fully with his September 28, 2000 request and for all information regarding the 1987 parking agreement.
8. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours….
9. It is found that to the extent records exist that are maintained by the respondent and are responsive to the complainant’s request, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. It is found that several of the specific items enumerated by the complainant in his September 28, 2000 request letter, such as: town treasurer files, RC 075 forms, town budgets, audit reports, ledgers and a town attorney file are not records that are maintained by the respondent; rather such records are maintained by the town treasurer, town clerk, town director of finance and town attorney, respectively.
11. It is further found that the respondent attempted to assist the complainant with locating the financial records he was seeking by asking the director of finance to meet with the complainant on October 11, 2000, as described in paragraph 4, above. It is further found that during the complainant’s meeting with the director of finance, the complainant was provided with access to audit reports, RC 075 forms and budget documents. The director of finance was not able to locate the ledger documents sought by the complainant at that time. The director of finance ascertained and later advised the complainant that most of the ledger documents had, in his opinion, properly been destroyed pursuant to records destruction authorizations but that the ledger summaries, for which he could not find a destruction authorization, could not be located.
12. With respect to those records maintained by the respondent directly that are responsive to the complainant’s request, it is found that the respondent provided the complainant with access to the agreement file maintained by him, as described in paragraph 5, above. It is further found that at the time of inspection, the respondent provided the complainant with only documents that were in existence prior to his September 28, 2000 request but that other documents had been generated after the complainant’s initial request, that had not yet been placed in the agreement file.
13. It is found that the respondent’s provision of access to the agreement file, as described in paragraphs 5 and 12, above, constituted compliance with the complainant’s request and that the additional efforts made by the respondent to locate records from the director of finance were good faith attempts to assist the complainant in getting access to the financial information he was seeking.
14. It is further found that the complainant is under the impression that he has to make any request for public records to the respondent, based upon his own past practices, and that he cannot make a request directly to other town officials or public agencies. It is found however, that to the extent the complainant seeks additional records other than those provided by the respondent, there is nothing preventing the complainant from directly requesting such records from the officials who are responsible for maintaining them, namely the: treasurer, town attorney, town clerk, director of finance and director of program development.
15. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S., under the facts and circumstances of this case.
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. As noted in paragraph 12, of the findings above, the respondent made reference during the hearing on this matter to a number of documents pertaining to the 1987 parking agreement which came into existence after the complainant’s initial September 28, 2000 request, that had not been placed in the agreement file at the time the complainant inspected such file. The respondent is encouraged to provide the complainant with access to such additional records.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 14, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
John J. Cassidy
7 Florence Lane
Plainville, CT 06062
Town Manager
Town of Plainville
c/o Robert A. Michalik, Esq.
Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik & Lynch, LLP
136 West Main Street, PO Box 2950
New Britain, CT 06050-2950
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-588/FD/paj/03/15/2001