FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Louisa B. Miner and J. Morgan Miner, Jr.
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 93-86
Waterford Zoning Enforcement Officer,
Respondent September 22, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 19, at which time the complainants 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated March 8, 1993 ("March request"), the complainants requested that the respondent provide copies of applications and all records concerning inspections and/or action taken regarding a zoning compliance permit for property located at 65 or 67 Clark Lane ("Clark Lane property"), from 1987 through March 1993.
3. By reply letter dated March 25, 1993 ("March letter"), the respondent provided the complainants with a copy of the zoning enforcement summary sheet containing references to field inspections conducted by the respondent on the property in question, and additional documentation relating to enforcement orders and referrals by the respondent.
4. In its March letter the respondent also encouraged the complainants to review its files concerning the Clark Lane property and tag the documents that they would like to have copied because the records request was not document specific and there was some question about which records the complainants actually wanted copied.
Docket #FIC 93-86 Page 2
5. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 2, 1993, the complainants alleged that the respondent had failed to respond to their records request within four business days, or to fully and promptly comply with their records request.
6. It is found that the records at issue are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
7. The respondent concedes that he did not respond to, or comply with the complainants' records request within four business days, but argues that he neither denied nor unduly delayed compliance because he always intended to comply with the records request.
8. Specifically, the respondent claims that the fact that the complainants' records request was not document specific, and spanned several years, occasioned the delay in compliance.
9. It is found that although the respondent failed to communicate his intention to comply with the complainants' records request in a timely manner, the complainants chose to file their appeal with the Commission after the March letter, rather than on the fifth business day following their records request as they could have, in accordance with 1-21i(a), G.S.
10. At the hearing on this matter, the complainants stated that they have still not been provided with copies of the following records: (a) zoning enforcement records from 1987 through 1990, (b) the record of, and correspondence concerning a May 12, 1992 discussion related to the Clark Lane property, and (c) a document responding to a May 15, 1992 letter.
11. It is found that there are no records of a May 12, 1992 discussion, nor any correspondence that was generated as a result of that discussion.
12. It is found that there are no records of any reply by the respondent to a letter dated May 15, 1992 concerning legal representation in matters involving the Clark Lane property.
13. It is found that as of April 26, 1993, the respondents had provided the complainants with copies of, or access to all existing zoning application records concerning the Clark Lane property for the period 1987 through March 1993.
14. Nevertheless, upon the facts of this case, it is found that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-86 Page 3
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall fully comply with the promptness provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
2. The Commission notes that in the interest of better government, and in the spirit of good faith and compliance with the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act, on or about April 19, 1993, the respondent adopted a policy for responding to, and complying with records requests made pursuant to the FOI Act.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 22, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-86 Page 4
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:
Louisa B. Miner and J. Morgan Miner, Jr.
75 Clark Lane
Waterford, CT 06385
Waterford Zoning Enforcement Officer
c/o Emmet L. Cosgrove, Esq.
Andrews, Quinn, Cosgrove & Young, P.C.
377 Broad Street
New London, CT 06320
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission