FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Paul Santoro, First Selectman, | |||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2005-310 | ||
|
Patricia Grassi, Town Clerk, Town of Canterbury, |
|||
| Respondent | May 24, 2006 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 6, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #s FIC 2005-308, Paul Santoro, First Selectman v. Lloyd Anderson, Chairman, Board of Finance, Town of Canterbury; #FIC 2005-309; Paul Santoro, First Selectman v. Cheryl Miller, Treasurer, Town of Canterbury; and FIC 2005-311; Paul Santoro, First Selectman v. Patricia Grassi, Town Clerk, Town of Canterbury. At the request of the complainant, the case caption has been amended to reflect the fact that, at the time of the filing of this complaint, the complainant was First Selectman of the town of Canterbury.
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 June 15, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with the following, which shall hereinafter be referenced as “the requested records”:
a. all bank statements and cancelled checks for the period July 1, 2004 to the time when all town and state public funds were reimbursed from the former unofficial Town Clerk account – that account being in the name of Patricia Grassi, c/o Canterbury Town Clerk;
b. all end of the month Town Clerk Z reports and Z-1 deposit reports and any other pertinent information needed to determine that all parties were properly reimbursed for the period beginning July 1, 2004 and ending November 30, 2004; and
c. all bank statements and cancelled checks for the period January 1, 2000 –June 30, 2003 for the unofficial Town Clerk account – that account being in the name of Patricia Grassi, c/o Canterbury Town Clerk.
3. By letter dated June 27, 2005 and filed on June 29, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by not providing him with copies of the requested records in response to his June 15, 2005, request. The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondent.
4. 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 section 1-212…."
5. 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.”
6. It is found that the records described in paragraph 2.b, above, are public records, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.b, above, under cover letter dated June 15, 2005, it is found that the Canterbury Town Treasurer provided the complainant with copies of such records, and that the respondent had provided the complainant with copies of such records prior to June 15, 2005. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant acknowledged that he had received copies of such records, but contended that what he sought was access to the original records described in paragraph 2.b, above.
8. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent testified that the original records described in paragraph 2.b, above, were available for public inspection in her office. It is found that the dispute with respect to the records described in paragraph 2.b, above, essentially arose out of miscommunication between the parties. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, with respect to the complainant’s request for such records.
9. With respect to the requests described in paragraph 2.a, and 2.c, above, it is found that, shortly after receiving the letter described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent orally informed the complainant that she would provide him with the opportunity to inspect such records in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement [hereinafter “the agreement”] referenced in the final decision of contested case Docket #FIC 2004-381; First Selectman, Town of Canterbury v. Town Clerk, Town of Canterbury [hereinafter “Docket #FIC2004-381”]. It is found that, under such terms, the parties thereto agreed that the same records described in paragraph 2.c, above, would be shown to the complainant after they had been audited by an outside accounting firm, and that no other persons would be shown such records. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent testified that, although the specific records described in paragraph 2.a, above, were not the subject of the agreement, she intended to provide them, as well as the documents described in paragraph 2.c, above, to the complainant, after the completion of the audit, in keeping with the spirit of the agreement. It is also found that the audit contemplated in the agreement had not been completed at the time of the hearing in this matter.
10. The Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in contested case Docket #FIC2005-311; Paul Santoro, First Selectman v. Patricia Grassi, Town of Canterbury (hereinafter “Docket #FIC2005-311”). The Commission notes that, in Docket #2005-311, the complainant sought enforcement of the agreement in Docket #FIC2004-381, while in this matter, the complainant in essence seeks to nullify the terms of such agreement. Nevertheless, in Docket #FIC2005-311, the Commission concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, and the Commission takes administrative notice of such conclusion herein. Therefore, the respondent’s position that she was attempting to comply with the terms of the agreement does not provide a basis for denying the complainant copies of the records described in paragraph 2.a and 2.c, above.
11. Alternatively, the respondent contends that the records described in paragraph 2.a, and 2.c, above, are not public records, pursuant to §7-34b, G.S.
12. Section 7-34b, G.S., provides:
“(a) The clerk of each municipality shall, at the end of the each fiscal year of such municipality, give an accounting of all fees and compensation provided by the general statutes to be paid to the clerk to the legislative body of such municipality. The record of such accounting shall be a public record, as defined in subdivision (5) of section 1-200.
(b) Any town may, by ordinance, provide that the town clerk shall receive a salary in lieu of all fees and other compensation provided for in the general statutes, which salary shall be fixed by the legislative body of such town. Upon adoption of such ordinance the fees or compensation provided by the general statutes to be paid to the town clerk shall be collected by such town clerk and he shall deposit all such moneys collected by him in accordance with such provisions of law as govern the deposit of moneys belonging to such town.”
13. It is found that, until December 1, 2004, the respondent town clerk continued the long-standing Canterbury practice of depositing all fees collected into a personal account from which she drew her compensation, as contemplated by §7-34b(a), G.S. It is further found that, pursuant to a new ordinance, Canterbury changed such long-standing practice, and that, as of December 1, 2004, all town fees collected have been deposited into a town account, as contemplated by §7-34b(b), G.S.
14. It is found that the records described in paragraph 2.a and 2.c, above, relate to the respondent’s personal account, maintained pursuant to §7-34b(a), G.S., and under her social security number.
15. It is concluded that, while §7-34b(a), G.S., provides that the yearly accounting described therein is a public record, it does not provide that back-up materials, such as the bank statements and cancelled checks sought herein, are not public records, as the respondent contends.
16. It is found that the respondent maintains the records described in paragraph 2.a and 2.c, above, and that therefore, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
17. It is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S., by not promptly providing the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraph 2.a, and 2.c, above.
18. The Commission in its discretion declines to consider the imposition of a civil penalty in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. If she has not already done so, the respondent shall, forthwith, provide the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraph 2.a, and 2.c, of the findings, above.
2. Consistent with Commission precedent, the respondent may redact her social security number, before providing such copies to the complainant.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 24, 2006.
________________________________
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:
Patricia Grassi, Town Clerk,
Town of Canterbury
c/o Barbara J. Collins, Esq.
44 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2005-310FD/paj/5/25/2006