FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 25, 2005, 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 letter received and filed November 17, 2004, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)  Act by not complying with the Commission’s order in docket #FIC 2003-178, David Jacobs v. Jon Grossman et al., and requesting that the Commission enforce its order.

 

3.  In paragraph 11 of the findings in docket #FIC 2003-178, the Commission found, with respect to the complainant’s request for all records of a certain February 19, 2003 meeting of the Branford Board of Police Commissioners with the Branford First Selectman, that “the respondents’ only possible record of that meeting may be a calendar notation on the respondent commissioner Grossman’s personal digital assistant (‘PDA’).”  [Emphasis added.]

 

4.  Also in docket #FIC 2003-178, the Commission ordered the respondent commissioner Grossman to “forthwith provide to the complainant a copy of any possible record identified in paragraph 11 of the findings, above.”  [Emphasis added.]

 

5.  It is found that no calendar notation of the February 19, 2003 meeting ever existed on commissioner Grossman’s PDA, as reflected by commissioner Grossman’s testimony, and the fact that a printout both of the commissioner’s current and archived appointment books shows no such appointment.

 

6.  The complainant maintains that the respondent, to comply properly with the Commission’s order in docket #FIC 2003-178, should have forthwith provided the complainant with a printout of the page from the appointment calendar showing no appointment.  (The respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the blank calendar page only after the complainant so requested, approximately six months after the final decision in docket #FIC 2003-178.)

 

7.  It is concluded, however, that the Commission’s order in docket #FIC 2003-178 only required the respondent to provide the complainant with a copy of a record of an actual appointment, not a copy of a blank page showing no appointment. 

 

8.  It is concluded that the respondent complied with the Commission’s order in docket #FIC 2003-178.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed. 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 25, 2005.

 

________________________________

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:

 

David Jacobs

55 Swift Street

Branford, CT 06405

 

Jon Grossman, Chairman,

Board of Police Commissioners,

Town of Branford

c/o Kevin S. Budge, Esq.

Wiggin & Dana

One Century Tower

PO Box 1832

New Haven, CT 06508-1832

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2004-523FD/paj/5/26/2005