In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION


Edward A. Corapinski,




against Docket #FIC 88-210


Town Clerk of the Town of Plainville,


Respondent September 28, 1988


The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 8, 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 letter dated May 18, 1988 the complainant made a request of the respondent for copies of vendors' invoices regarding the purchase, by the Town of Plainville, of a volume entitled "Charter Ordinances and Special Acts."


3. By letter of complaint dated May 25, 1988 and filed with the Commission on June 2, 1988, the complainant alleged the respondent's failure to provide the requested records.


4. It is found that the respondent received the complainant's request for records on May 23, 1988 and immediately forwarded it to the department of finance, which maintains the type of records requested.


5. On May 27, 1988 the respondent received the requested records from the department of finance and, on the same date, forwarded a memorandum to the complainant stating that the records were ready to be picked up.


6. The complainant received the respondent's May 27, 1988 memorandum on May 28, 1988, but has refused to accept the documents, claiming that with the exception of one, they are not relevant to his request.


Docket #FIC 88-210 Page Two


7. The complainant claims that the one relevant document, an invoice from Adkins Printers, is unacceptable because a portion of the vendor's letterhead is illegible.


8. It is found that the original invoice, dated May 31, 1984, has been lost or destroyed. The copy made available to the complainant on or about May 27, 1988 was one previously made available to the complainant in response to a 1986 request for records, and was located by the respondent in a correspondence file.


9. It is found that the respondent responded promptly to the complainant's May 18, 1988 request for records, received on May 23, 1988, and has not denied the complainant access to inspect or copy any existing public records.


10. It is concluded that the respondent's response to the complainant's May 18, 1988 request for records did not violate 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 special meeting of September 28, 1988.


Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission