FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

George W. Esposito,

 

Complainant,

 

against Docket #FIC 87-268

 

Hamden Town Attorney,

 

Respondent March 9, 1988

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 19, 1987, 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:

 

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By complaint filed September 17, 1987, the complainant claimed that the respondent failed to provide him access to inspect and failed to provide him copies of the Dunbar-Davenport file.

 

3. The respondent admitted that inspection of the file was not provided until September 10, 1987, and that the copies requested were not provided until early October, 1987.

 

4. The respondent claimed that compliance was delayed because the file was temporarily out of the office and because of confused communication.

 

5. On the day the complainant requested the file, he was told that the file was not available because it was in Hartford.

 

6. On the next day after he requested the file, the complainant was told the file was in the Mayor's office. However, no one provided it to him despite the presentation by the complainant of a written Freedom of Information request.

 

7. On September 10, 1987, the respondent allowed the complainant to inspect the file, but denied him copies of the records which he wanted.

 

Docket #FIC 87-268 page two

 

8. On or about October 8, 1987, the complainant paid for and received the records he requested.

 

9. It is found that access to inspect and copy records requested by the complainant was not provided in accordance with 1-15 and 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 respondent shall henceforth provide access to records promptly as required by 1-19(a) and 1-15, G.S.

 

2. If the respondent intends to continue her representation of a public agency, she should become better informed concerning the requirements of prompt access in the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of March 9, 1988.

 

 

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission