FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 13, 2003, 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 e-mail dated October 17, 2002, the complainant made a request for access to inspect “the plans and specifications for the Goslee bathhouse facility (hereinafter “the bathhouse”) project before such plans and specifications go out for bid.”  The complainant also requested access to inspect the contract for the construction of the skate park. 

 

3.      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. 

 

4.      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 . . . .”

 

5.      It is found that to the extent the requested records exist, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

6.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant withdrew that portion of his complaint concerning his request for access to inspect the contract for the construction of the skate park.

 

7.      It is found that by e-mail dated October 22, 2002, the complainant received a response to his request from a Mr. Peter Souza who indicated that he believed “the Goslee Pool bathhouse renovation plans will be under review over the next 45 to 60 days [and he] would be happy to arrange for [the complainant] to view the plans.”

 

8.      It is found that the complainant interpreted Mr. Souza’s response to mean that the requested records were available for his inspection and waited for Mr. Souza to make the arrangements for him to do so.

 

9.      It is found however that, at the time of the complainant’s request, the respondent had only received and was reviewing submissions from different contractors for how the bathhouse might be renovated and had not developed the actual plans and specifications.

 

10.  It is found that the plans and specifications for the bathhouse were completed on January 23, 2003. 

 

11.  It is found therefore that the requested records did not exist at the time of the complainant’s request.

 

12.  It is found that on or about January 27, 2003, the complainant received a call from an employee of the town informing him that the requested records were available for his inspection; however the complainant was provided with and inspected plans to an access road to the park in which the bathhouse is located.  The complainant received and paid for a copy of those plans without indicating that he was looking for the plans and specifications to the bathhouse itself.

 

13.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant explained that he did not inform the respondent that he was provided with the wrong records because he felt that his October 17, 2002 request was explicit enough for the respondent to provide the correct records.

 

14.  It is found that the respondent’s provision to the complainant of the wrong records was inadvertent and could have been quickly and easily corrected at the time he inspected the records had he informed the respondent that he had been provided with the wrong records. 

 

15.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant also claimed that the intent of his October 17, 2002 letter was to request any records that the respondent may have had at the time pertaining to the bathhouse renovation project, which would have included the submissions received by the respondent from contractors.  The complainant also claimed that pursuant to Mr. Souza’s response of October 22, 2002, records responsive to his request did exist at the time of his request and such records, whatever they were, should have been provided to him.

 

16.  It is found that while the complainant may have wanted to inspect any records the respondent maintained pertaining to the bathhouse renovation project, that could not be understood from a fair reading of his request, and the records he specifically requested did not exist at the time of his request, as stated in paragraph 11, above.

 

17.  It is concluded therefore, based on the facts and circumstance of this case, that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

 

 

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

August 13, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

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:

 

Bradshaw Smith

23 Ludlow Road

Windsor, CT  06095

 

Ralph Leon Churchill, Jr.

Town Manager,

Town of Windsor

275 Broad Street

Windsor, CT  06095

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-554FD/abg/08/14/2003