FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Carl F. Branciforte, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-284 | |
|
Director,
Department of Public Works, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
August 22, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on July 16, 2001, 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 May 16, 2001 the complainant made a request to the respondent for copies of:
a. “the developer’s permit agreement for William Coons, who is building the Monnes Farm Development; and
b. the developer’s permit agreement for Rook Associates, which is building a housing complex for older people, off Timper Hill Road.”
3. By letter dated June 4, 2001 and filed on June 5, 2001 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his May 16, 2001 request.
4. Section 1-210(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.
5. Section 1-212(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 . . . .”
6. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. It is found that the complainant’s request was received by the respondent’s office on or about May 18, 2001 but the respondent did not respond to it because he was out of the office due to a death in his family.
8. It is found that the complainant visited the respondent’s office on or about May 25, 2001 and again on May 29, 2001 to inquire about his request.
9. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant maintained that he was denied access on both May 25, 2001 and May 29, 2001 because the respondent was not available to respond to his request.
10. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent maintained that during the complainant’s first visit to his office regarding the May 16, 2001 request, the respondent printed draft copies of the requested agreements from his computer and provided them to the complainant. The respondent also maintained that the complainant filed the complaint in this matter because he wants signed copies of the agreements. The respondent further maintained that he explained to the complainant that the copies provided to him were unsigned because his computer was not programmed for electronic signatures and that he did not maintain signed copies of the agreements.
11. It is found that the respondent does not maintain any signed copies of the requested agreements and that the original signed agreements are in the custody of the Cromwell Police Department.
12. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant maintained that he had not been provided with copies of the unsigned agreements.
13. It is found that the complainant is adamant that he did not receive the requested records and would not have filed the complaint in this matter if he had.
14. It is found, however, that the complainant has requested and received copies of other permit agreements from the respondent in the past and there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent failed to provide copies in this instance.
15. Therefore, it is concluded that, under the facts and circumstance, of this case that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a) and 1-212(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.
2. The Commission notes the respondent’s willingness on the record in this matter to provide the complainant with unsigned copies of the requested agreements by posting such agreements in the mail by 3:00 p.m. on July 16, 2001. The respondent is encouraged to follow through on such promise.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 22, 2001.
_________________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
Carl
F. Branciforte
Six
Woodlawn Drive
Cromwell,
CT 06416
Michael
Marino, Director,
Department
of Public Works,
Town
of Cromwell
41
West Street
Cromwell,
CT 06416
________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission