FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Joseph Straw and New Haven Register, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-514 | |
|
Office of the Mayor, City of New Haven, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 27, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 20, 2001, at which time the complainants appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent failed to appear.
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. It is found that, by letter dated November 2, 2001, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with the opportunity to review the proposals for the “three downtown blocks” received by the city in July 2001 from Matthews Ventures LLC; S.N. Phelps & Co.; and Williams Jackson Ewing, Inc. [hereinafter “the requested records”].
3. It is found that the complainants contacted the corporation counsel for the city of New Haven on November 14, 2001, and were verbally denied access to the requested records at such time.
4. By letter dated November 14, 2001, and filed with the Commission on November 15, 2001, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them the opportunity to review the requested records.
5. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S.
6. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency… and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
[Emphasis added.]
7. It is found that, on November 29, 2001, the respondent offered the complainants the opportunity to review the requested records and that the complainants conducted such review on November 30, 2001.
8. It is found that the respondent’s compliance with the request described in paragraph 2, above, was not prompt within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provision of such statute in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness provision of §1-210(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 27, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Office of the Mayor
City of New Haven
165 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-514/FD/paj/3/4/2002