FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 29, 2003, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared 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.  It is found that on April 2, 2003, the complainants requested that the interim Town Manager provide them with numerous records, including e-mail messages sent from and received by the Office of the Director of Human Resources, Roy Pinette, covering the time period of September 1, 2002, through March 24, 2003.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated April 14, 2003, the interim Town Manager acknowledged receipt of the request and informed the complainants that it was being reviewed by the town counsel and once that was complete he would notify them of the status of the request.

 

            4.  It is found that on April 30, 2003, the Town Manager provided the complainants with e-mails responsive to the complainants’ request, however, certain e-mails were redacted.

 

            5.   Thereafter, by letter, postmarked June 5, 2003, and received by the Commission on June 9, 2003, the complainants filed this appeal, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them complete or unredacted copies of e-mails.  The complainants also allege that they have not been provided with all e-mails responsive to their request for the period September 1, 2002 through March 24, 2003.

 

6.  The respondent contends that the complaint in this matter is untimely, in that the complainants failed to file their complaint within thirty days of being denied a copy of the unredacted e-mails. 

 

7.  Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., in relevant part, provides:

 

Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.  For purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked, if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such appeal is taken.  [Emphasis added].

            8.  It is found that the respondent provided the complainants with e-mails on April 30, 2003, and sometime thereafter the complainant followed-up with the respondent and requested unredacted copies of certain e-mails.  The complainant does not recall the date of his follow-up request to the respondent.  Nor does he recall the date on which the respondent denied the follow-up request.

            9.  It is found that the complainant is unable to establish that he filed his complaint within thirty days of being denied access to the unredacted e-mails.

            10.  Consequently, it is concluded that the complainant failed to file his complaint in a timely manner and in accordance with the provisions of §1-206(b)(1), G.S.

            11.  It is therefore, further concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear the complainants’ appeal.

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 October 22, 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:

 

Robert J. LaBonte and International

Brotherhood of Police Officers Local #391

c/o Wethersfield Police Department

250 Silas Deane Highway

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

Town Manager,

Town of Wethersfield

c/o Duncan J. Forsyth, Esq.

Halloran & Sage LLP

225 Asylum Street

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-213/FD/abg/10/23/2003