FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 21, 2011, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, this matter has been consolidated with Docket #FIC 2011-161, Frank J. Kolb, Jr., v. Mayor, Town of East Haven and Town of East Haven; and Docket #FIC 2011-212, Frank J. Kolb, Jr., v. Mayor, Town of East Haven and Town of East Haven. 

 

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.  It is found that, by letter dated June 17, 2011, the complainant requested from the respondents a copy of the “Investigative Report of [the] [t]own regarding alleged violations by Chief Gallo and any and all supporting documents that may be had with regard to same, including but not limited to emails, any and all types of communications, without exclusion of any type, wholly internal communications and communications from inside the [t]own, notes, memoranda, etc. of oral communications of any type.” [1]

 

3.  It is found that the letter described in paragraph 2, above, was faxed and hand-delivered to counsel for the respondents on June 17, 2011.  It is further found that counsel for the respondents is the individual responsible for reviewing and responding to Freedom of Information (FOI) Act requests on behalf of the respondents.

 

4.  By letter of complaint, dated and filed July 6, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to comply with the request, described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

6.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Except 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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

            7.   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.”

 

8.    It is found that the respondents maintain the records described in paragraph 2, above, and that such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure. 

 

9.   It is found that, by email to counsel, dated August 19, 2011, the complainant inquired as to why he had not yet received the Investigative Report, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

10.  It is found that, by email to the complainant, dated August 19, 2011, counsel responded that “you never asked for the Investigative Report, so therefore it was never refused.”

 

11.  It is found that the respondents thereafter provided the complainant with a copy of the Investigative Report, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

12.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that he needed a copy of the Investigative Report in order to prepare for a Loudermill Hearing that appeared to be imminent at the time of the June 17^th request.  It is found that the respondents were aware that the complainant needed a copy of such report for such purpose.  It is found that the respondents received the request, described in paragraph 2, above, on or about June 17, 2011, and that, at the hearing in this matter, the respondents offered no explanation regarding why it took them approximately two months to provide the complainant with a copy of the requested records.

 

13.  It is found that the respondents failed to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the records, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

14.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated the promptness requirements of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

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

 

1.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness requirements of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 14, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

Joseph A. Disilvestro

Kolb & Associates, P.C.

49 High Street

East Haven, CT  06512

 

Mayor, Town of East Haven; and

Town of East Haven

c/o Michael A. Albis, Esq.

Hilcoff & Albis, LLC

58 Edward Street

East Haven, CT  06512

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2011-343/FD/cac/12/16/2011