FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
Holly J. Blinkoff, |
|
||
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-615 | |
Mayor,
City of Torrington; Purchasing Agent,
City of Torrington; Planning and Zoning
Department, City of Torrington; Comptroller,
City of Torrington; City Clerk, City
of Torrington; Fire Marshal, City of Torrington;
and Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington, |
|
||
|
Respondents |
October 24, 2001 | |
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 7, 2001, August 28, 2001, and September 10, 2001, at which times
the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and
presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC
2000-651, John Carter v. Purchasing Department, City of Torrington
(hereinafter “Docket #FIC 2000-651”).
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.
It is found that on
or about October 20, 2000, the complainant submitted written requests for
copies of records to each of the named respondents (hereinafter “October 20,
2000 request or requests”).
3.
It is also found that
the complainant inquired about her request at the respondent city clerk’s
office and was informed by the city clerk that all of her requests had been
picked up at each department by the city attorney and that the attorney
advised each department that the City of Torrington would appeal the requests.
It is further found that the complainant made inquiries about her
requests at other departments and was informed that, pursuant to instructions
from the respondent mayor and the city attorney, her requests would not be
complied with and that she should direct her inquiries to the city attorney.
4.
Having been informed
that her October 20, 2000 requests would not be honored, the complainant
appealed to this Commission by letter dated November 11, 2000 and filed on
November 13, 2000, alleging that all of the named respondents violated the
Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by failing to respond to or
comply with her requests.
5.
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.
6.
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
. . . .”
7.
It is found that to
the extent records exist that are responsive to the complainant’s requests,
such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8.
It is also found that
each of the named respondents maintain records that are responsive to the
complainant’s requests.
9.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainant stated that the respondent city clerk complied
with her October 20, 2000 request after she filed the complaint in this
matter. Notwithstanding the delay
in gaining access to the requested records, the complainant stated that she
wished to withdraw her complaint against the city clerk.
10.
It is found that up
to and including the date of the hearing on this matter, none of the named
respondents, with the exception of the city clerk, provided the complainant
with copies of the requested records.
11.
It is also found that
the complainant’s requests were collected by the city attorney for the City
of Torrington and that each of the named respondents were directed by either
the city attorney or the respondent mayor not to comply with complainant’s
requests.
12.
It is further found
that upon receipt of the complainant’s requests, some of the named
respondents, specifically the respondent comptroller and the respondent fire
marshal, had compiled or had started to compile the responsive records and
were willing to provide such records to the complainant but did not do so
after receiving the directive of the respondent mayor and the city attorney.
13.
At the hearing on
this matter, the respondents made no claim that any of the requested records
are exempt from the disclosure provisions of the FOI Act.
Rather, the respondents maintained that the complainant submitted her
requests, in concert with John Carter (the complainant in Docket #FIC
2000-651), for the purpose of harassing the respondents.
Specifically, the respondents claimed that the complainant submits
records requests, which are duplicative of earlier requests made by her and
which have already been fulfilled by the respondents.
The respondents also claimed that many of the complainant’s records
requests are overly broad, burdensome to fulfill, and would require research.
Finally, the respondents claimed that their failure to respond to the
complainant’s records requests was appropriate and that they should not be
required to comply with such requests.
14.
With respect to the
respondents’ claim of harassment, §1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant
part that:
If
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 conducted in accordance
with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, 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. . . .
15.
With respect to the
respondent mayor, it is found that the respondent has provided some records to
the complainant’s attorney in the past, in connection with civil litigation
that is pending between the complainant and the City of Torrington.
16.
It is further found
that many of the records provided by the respondent mayor in the past are
similar to or duplicative of the records requested in the complainant’s
October 20, 2000 request.
17.
It is further found
however, that some of the records requested in the complainant’s October 20,
2000 request to the respondent mayor have not been provided to the complainant
in the past, either in connection with the civil litigation referred to in
paragraph 15, above, or otherwise.
18.
With respect to the
respondent purchasing agent, it is found that the respondent has provided
numerous records to the complainant and the complainant’s attorney in the
past, in response to requests from the complainant and in connection with
civil litigation that is pending between the complainant and the City of
Torrington.
19.
It is further found
that many of the records provided by the respondent purchasing agent in the
past are similar to or duplicative of the records requested in the complainant’s
October 20, 2000 request.
20.
It is further found
that some of the records requested in the complainant’s October 20, 2000
request to the respondent purchasing agent have not been provided to the
complainant in the past, either in connection with the civil litigation or
otherwise.
21.
With respect to the
respondent planning and zoning department, it is found that the respondent has
provided some records to the complainant in the past, in response to various
requests from the complainant.
22.
It is further found
that some of the records provided by the respondent planning and zoning
department in the past are duplicative of four of the five records requested
by the complainant in her October 20, 2000 request.
23.
With respect to the
respondent comptroller, it is found that the respondent comptroller has
provided some records to the complainant in the past, in response to various
requests from the complainant.
24.
It is further found
that some of the records provided by the respondent comptroller in the past
are similar to or duplicative of the records requested in the complainant’s
October 20, 2000 request.
25.
It is further found
that some of the records requested of the respondent comptroller in the
complainant’s October 20, 2000 request have not been provided to the
complainant in the past.
26.
With respect to the
respondent fire marshal and the respondent police chief, it is found that the
respondents provided the complainant with records in the past, in response to
other requests from the complainant.
27.
It is further found
however, that the records provided by the respondent fire marshal and the
respondent chief in the past are not similar to or duplicative of the records
requested in the complainant’s October 20, 2000 request.
28.
With respect to the
complainant’s October 20, 2000 requests in their entirety, it is found that
nothing in the FOI Act precludes the complainant from requesting copies of
records that have already been provided to her pursuant to prior requests, or
to her attorney in connection with civil litigation.
29.
It is further found
that some of the complainant’s requests, as claimed by the respondents, are
very broad and cover very lengthy periods of time.
30.
It is further found
that some of the complainant’s requests would be burdensome to fulfill, due
to the volume of records requested and the location and organization of the
files containing responsive records.
31.
It is further found
however, that the complainant’s October 20, 2000 requests to the various
respondents, specifically identified the records she sought and do not require
the respondents to analyze or exercise any discretion as to whether records
fall within the scope of the complainant’s requests.
32.
Although the
Commission appreciates that compliance with some of the complainant’s
requests would be time consuming for the reasons found in paragraphs 29 and
30, above, it is found that compliance with such requests would not require
research as claimed by the respondents. Rather,
compliance with some of the complainant’s requests would require a lengthy
and thorough search of some of the various respondents’ files.
See Wildin v. Freedom of Information Commission, 56 Conn. App
683, 687 (2000)
33.
It is further found
that many of the records responsive to the complainant’s October 20, 2000
requests are readily available to the respondents and would not require an
extensive and thorough search.
34.
Further, it is found
that the respondents made no attempt in those instances described in
paragraphs 29 and 30, above, or in those instances in which the complainant
had previously received similar or duplicative records, to contact the
complainant to ascertain whether she could narrow the scope of her requests or
revise such requests.
35.
With respect to the
respondent’s claim that the complainant submits her requests in concert with
John Carter to harass the respondents, it is found that the complainant has a
friendly relationship with Mr. Carter, and that he accompanied her on at least
one occasion to public agencies in the City of Torrington to submit records
requests.
36.
It is further found
that Mr. Carter has delivered written records requests to public agencies in
the City of Torrington on the complainant’s behalf and that he has also
picked up copies of records requested by her from such agencies.
37.
It
is further found that the first of the twenty records requested by the
complainant to the respondent purchasing agent in this case, is similar,
although not identical, to Mr. Carter’s November 8, 2000 request (which
request is at issue in Docket #FIC 2000-651).
38.
It is further found,
however, that the complainant’s request to the respondent purchasing agent
in this case was submitted almost one month before Mr. Carter’s request and
that there is nothing unusually significant about the similarity of the two
requests in view of the fact that both requests are typical of the records
requests generally received by the respondent.
39.
It is further found
that even if the complainant’s and Mr. Carter’s requests were identical,
nothing in the FOI Act precludes one person from seeking copies of records
that have been requested by another person, even if such persons are friends.
40.
It is further found
that the Commission has entertained only one other case involving the
complainant, Docket #FIC 1998-189, Holly J. Blinkoff and Quality Sand and
Gravel, Inc., D/B/A v. Comptroller, City of Torrington; Purchasing Agent,
Purchasing Department, City of Torrington; and City of Torrington B&B
Group, which case did not involve Mr. Carter or the records at issue in
this case and in which the complainant withdrew her complaint against
the respondent comptroller and the respondent purchasing was found in
violation of the FOI Act.
41.
It is further found
that there is nothing in the nature, content, language or subject matter of
the complainant’s October 20, 2000 requests or her appeal to the Commission
to suggest that the complainant, alone or in concert with Mr. Carter, is
harassing the respondents.
42.
It is further found
that the complainant appears to genuinely be confused as to which records she
previously requested and received from the named respondents.
43.
It is further found
that the Commission decisions cited in the respondents’ memorandum of law
submitted after the hearing on this matter, wherein the Commission concluded
that the complainants in such matters had filed appeals frivolously, without
reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondents in
such matters, are clearly distinguishable from this case.
44.
Therefore, it is
further found that the respondents failed to prove that the complainant’s
appeal to this Commission, either alone or in concert with Mr. Carter, was
taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of
harassing the respondents, within the meaning of §1-206(b)(2), G.S.
Indeed, the Commission would be hard pressed to find, absent
substantial evidence of harassment, that an appeal had been filed frivolously,
without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassment, in a case
such as this wherein the respondents failed to provide any response
whatsoever, and essentially ignored, the complainant’s requests.
45.
It is further found
that even if the respondents believed that the complainant’s requests were
submitted to harass the respondents, the respondents still had an obligation
under §1-206(a),
G.S., to respond to the complainant’s request promptly.
46.
Based upon all of the
findings above, it is concluded therefore that the respondents violated
§1-206(a), G.S., by failing to respond to the complainant’s requests and
further violated the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.,
by failing to comply promptly with the complainant’s October 20, 2000
requests.
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 as against the respondent city clerk.
2. With respect to the complainant’s October 20, 2000 requests, each named respondent shall provide the complainant with copies of the requested records maintained by that respondent, along with a written inventory detailing which records have been provided and which records are not maintained by that respondent. Such records and inventories shall be provided to the complainant within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter.
3. To assist the respondents in complying with paragraph 2 of the order, above, the complainant is directed to inform the respondents, in writing, of the applicable time periods for the records sought where not specified in her October 20, 2000 requests, within ten (10) days of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter.
4. Although the Commission concludes in this case that the complainant’s appeal to this Commission was not filed frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondents, within the meaning of §1-206(b)(2), G.S., the Commission urges the complainant to take greater care to note the records she has previously requested and received, and to limit the scope of her requests to those records she actually seeks, in order to avoid the expense of unnecessary duplicative requests and a colorable claim of harassment against her.
5. The Commission notes that a number of the respondents had been in the process of complying with the complainant’s requests when they were instructed not to do so by the respondent mayor and the corporation counsel. This decision by the respondent mayor and the corporation counsel was based on an imprecise, general theory of harassment, that was much broader than the legal standard explicitly set forth in §1-206(b)(2), G.S., and led to the violations found above. Rather than ordering that the complainant’s requests be ignored, they should have sought to address their specific concerns about the scope of, and duplication in, the complainant’s requests directly with her. The Commission urges the respondent mayor and corporation counsel to consider all of the provisions and remedies set forth in §1-206(b)(2), G.S., if in the future, they believe action against a complainant is warranted. Ignoring a request for public records is simply not acceptable.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 24, 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:
Holly J. Blinkoff
c/o John R. Williams, Esq.
and Dawne Westbrook, Esq.
51 Elm Street, Suite 409
New Haven, CT 06510
Mayor,
City of Torrington; Purchasing
Agent,
City of Torrington; Planning and
Zoning
Department, City of Torrington;
Comptroller,
City of Torrington; City Clerk,
City
of Torrington; Fire Marshal, City of
Torrington;
and Chief, Police Department,
City
of Torrington
c/o Martin A. Gould, Esq.
and Mark W. Baronas, Esq.
280 Trumbull Street, 25th floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3595
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-615/FD/paj/10/30/2001