FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 20, 2003, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint, dated April 21, 2003, and filed on April 23, 2003, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond within four business days to his records request, described in paragraph 3, below.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter (undated) the complainant requested that the respondent board provide him with “any and all records concerning …[the complainant’s] request to be re-appointed as a Police Commissioner in January, 2003.”

            4.  It is found that the respondent First Selectman’s office received the request on April 9, 2003.

            5.  It is found that the clerk of the respondent board searched the respondent’s records, compiled the records she believed to be responsive to the complainant’s request and mailed such records to the complainant on April 16, 2003, five business days following the receipt of the complainant’s request.  It is found that the records compiled by the clerk are responsive to the complainant’s request.

            6.  It is found that the records described in paragraph 5, above, were actually compiled and ready to be mailed to the complainant on April 15, 2003, however, because the respondent first selectman was out on that day the clerk held the records until April 16, 2003, at which time the first selectman reviewed them prior to them being mailed to the complainant.  

7.    Section 1-206(a), G.S., provides:

 

Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request …  Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.

            8.  It is found that the respondents could have, and should have, at a minimum followed up with the complainant within four business days.  Their failure to do so led the complainant to believe that his request was being denied, within the meaning of §1-206(a), G.S.  Following up with the complainant would have kept him apprised of the situation and let him know that his request was being processed.

            9.  It is found that the clerk of the respondent board testified that she now follows up within four business days of the receipt of an FOI request. 

            10.  It is concluded that under the facts and circumstances of this case, where the records at issue were compiled and provided to the complainant within five business days, such provision of access was “prompt”, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

            11.  It is also found that the complainant may have filed this complaint in bad faith because although the complainant received the records at issue in this case, and he was aware that such request was processed within five business days, he nonetheless filed this complaint after receiving the records. 

            12.  The complainant’s request for civil penalties is denied.

            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 January 14, 2004.

 

 

___________________________________

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:

 

David R. Jacobs, Jr.

55 Swift Street

Branford, CT  06405

 

Anthony DaRos, First Selectman, Town of

Branford; Francis Walsh, and Bob Denhardt,

as members, Board of Selectmen, Town of Branford;

and Board of Selectmen, Town of Branford

c/o Carolyn Vacchiano

Wiggin and Dana

One Century Tower

New Haven, CT  06508

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-147/FD/abg/01/16/2004