FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
C. J. Mozzochi,
against Docket #FIC 86-142
Town Manager of the Town of Glastonbury,
Respondent September 24, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 11, 1986, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on May 27, 1986 the complainant requested a hearing on a letter to the respondent dated May 21, 1986.
3. In a May 21, 1986 letter to the respondent the complainant requested access to inspect or copy all files, open or closed, and including all in-house billing records and time cards, pertaining to Town of Glastonbury matters in which the services of Attorneys Harvey A. Katz, Homer Scoville, William Rogers or Richard Brown were used. At hearing, the complainant narrowed his request to exclude records relating to matters in negotiation.
4. At hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with 4-177(b), G.S., and that such alleged failure to comply violated the due process protections afforded by the United States Constitution.
5. It is found that upon receipt of the complainant's letter requesting a hearing, the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing and Order to Show Cause, to which were appended copies of all documents received from the complainant. Such procedure was followed in accordance with the directives of 1-21i(b), G.S. and
Docket #FIC 86-142 Page Two
fully met the requirements of 4-177(b), G.S. Furthermore, the respondent could have applied for a more definite and detailed statement of the matters at issue, pursuant to 4-177(b), G.S., but failed to do so.
6. The respondent's motion to dismiss on the ground of inadequate notice and lack of due process was, therefore, denied.
7. By letter dated June 4, 1986 the respondent advised the complainant that upon reasonable notice specifying the specific file, the Town of Glastonbury would make available for inspection or copying pleadings, bills, invoices, correspondence to third parties, provided such correspondence was not protected by the attorney-client privilege or part of negotiations and strategy relating to active files, and final advisory opinions not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product of the attorney.
8. The respondent has offered access to all bills submitted to the Town of Glastonbury, which bills record account numbers and names, previous balances, new billings, payments received, current balances, the nature of the professional services rendered, dates of services, and amount of time spent on each activity in both detailed and summary form.
9. It is found that the complainant has not requested or been denied access to any specific, identifiable public record. In response to a broad request for a category of records the respondent offered access to the fullest extent possible, reserving its right to withhold documents which might be legitimately exempt from disclosure.
10. It is concluded that under the circumstances of this matter, the complainant has not been denied access to inspect or copy any public record within the meaning of 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.
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 September 24, 1986.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission