FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

C. J. Mozzochi,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 88-79

 

Richard S. Borden, Glastonbury Town Manager,

 

Respondent June 22, 1988

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 21, 1988, 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 letters dated February 20, 1988, February 21, 1988, February 23, 1988 and February 24, 1988 the complainant made a voluminous request of the respondent to inspect the files of past and present town attorneys.

 

3. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on March 7, 1988 the complainant appealed the respondent's failure to provide him with the requested records.

 

4. The complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

5. At the hearing, the complainant filed a motion to terminate the hearing. The motion was denied.

 

6. Also at the hearing, the respondent requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty against the complainant.

 

7. At the hearing, the respondent stated that the complainant made a similar request a few months ago, which was complied with. However, after incurring the expense of retrieving the files, as of the date of this hearing, the complainant has failed to go to the town hall to inspect the files.

 

Docket #FIC 88-79 Page 2

 

8. Richard J. Johnson, the Assistant Town Manager testified that it will cost approximately $10,000 to retrieve the 105 files which are the subject of this request.

 

9. It is found that the documents are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

10. It is concluded, however, that under the unusual facts more fully described at paragraph 7, above, the Commission declines to order the disclosure of the subject documents.

 

11. The Commission declines to order a civil penalty against the complainant or respondent.

 

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 special meeting of June 22, 1988.

 

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission