FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Sinai J. Bordeleau,
against Docket #FIC 94-306
Jewett City Board of Warden and Burgesses,
Respondent July 12, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 3, 1995, 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 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 of complaint filed September 1, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his August 3, 1994 request to the respondent had been transmitted to the chairman of the Jewett City water polution control authority ("WPCA").
3. It is found that the complainant by letter dated August 3, 1994 to the respondent requested copies of the following records:
a. the minutes of the Jewett City sewer authority from 1967 to the present;
b. the minutes of the hearings on user fees held since December 4, 1967;
c. the user fees filed with the borough clerk since 1967;
d. the authority that allowed the sewer authority to "invade the sovereignty as required in Section 7-273 of the Connecticut General Statutes;"
e. each sewer authority budget up to 1978, and the WPCA budgets from then to the present;
Docket #FIC 94-306 Page 2
f. all audits concerning "Use of Funds defined in Section 7-276 of the Connecticut General Statutues;
g. the audit of the "Sewer II account," showing each deposit and withdrawl;
h. the minutes of the WPCA meeting authorizing the renewal of notes due;
i. the audit report of the "'Reserve Fund for Capital and Non-Recuring expenditures in accordance with the provisions of Sections 7-360 through 7-368 of the Connecticut General Statutes' put in effect through a motion by Burgess Louis Demicco and seconded by Burgess George Kennedy and unanimously accepted by vote;"
j. any agreement existing between the town of Griswold water pollution control authority in compliance with sections 7-272 and 7-339c, G.S.; and
k. any authority to use funds colected for benefit assessments and charges for connection with or the use of the sewerage system "in compliance with Section 7-267 of the Connecticut General Statutes."
4. It is found that the respondent transmitted the complainant's request to the chairman of the Jewett City WPCA by letter dated August 9, 1994.
5. It is found that the WPCA succeeded the Jewett City sewer authority in July of 1990.
6. It is found that the complainant visited the offices of the WPCA and obtained all minutes, audits, records of expenditures and receipts, and engineering reports, concerning the WPCA.
7. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3a, above, it is found that, before the creation of the WPCA, the respondent conducted sewer authority business during its regular meetings, and did not keep separate minutes concerning sewer authority business.
8. It is further found that the respondent has made all of its minutes available to the complainant, and that to segregate those portions of the minutes concerning sewer authority business would require research that is not mandated by the FOI Act.
Docket #FIC 94-306 Page 3
9. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3b, above, it is found that no such hearings were held.
10. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3c, above, it is found that no such user fees were filed.
11. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraphs 3d and 3k, above, it is found that the complainant's request is essentially legal argument that such authority is required, and is not a request for records under the FOI Act.
12. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3e, above, it is found that the budgets of the sewer authority were contained in the city's general fund budgets, which were made available to the complainant.
13. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraphs 3f, 3g, and 3i, above, it is found that any audits are contained in the city's annual audit, which were made available to the complainant.
14. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3h, above, it is found that to find a particular set of minutes authorizihg an action requires research not mandated by the FOI Act.
15. With respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3j, above, it is found that although a proposed agreement was drafted (which draft the complainant has seen), no agreement was actually executed or is in effect.
16. It is therefore found that the respondent did not deny the complainant copies of any records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 12, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-306 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:
SINAI J. BORDELEAU
81 Russell Street
Jewett City, CT 06351-1900
JEWETT CITY BOARD OF WARDEN AND BURGESSES
c/o Richard J. Duda, Esq.
110 Main Street
Jewett City, CT 06351
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission