FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Raymond F. Hallowell,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1997-270
President, Quassett Lake District
Association
Respondents May 27, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 19, 
1997 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(1), G.S.
	2.  It is found that by letter dated June 6, 1997, the complainant requested that the 
respondent provide him with copies of all correspondence and meeting schedules 
concerning Pomfret School use of Quassett Lake District property (hereinafter “requested 
records”).
	3.  It is found that on July 23, 1997, by telephone, the complainant again 
requested that the respondent provide him with the correspondence described in 
paragraph 2, above, at which time the respondent refused to provide the complainant with 
a copy of a July 3, 1997 letter.
	4.  The complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated August 20, 1997 
and filed on August 21, 1997, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of 
Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the requested records.
	5.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant requested that the Commission 
impose a civil penalty of at least $1.00 upon the respondent.
	6.  With respect to the request for correspondence, described in paragraph 3, 
above, it is found that at the time of the complainant’s July 23, 1997 request, the 
respondent had a July 3, 1997 letter that was responsive to such request.  The respondent 
testified at the hearing on this matter that he did not provide the complainant with a copy 
of the July 3, 1997 letter at the time of the complainant’s request because he believed that 
proper procedure required that he first apprise the Quassett Lake Association District 
board of the existence of such letter prior to providing the complainant with a copy.
	7.  It is found that the complainant eventually obtained a copy of the July 3, 1997 
letter during a 7:00 p.m. July 23, 1997 meeting of the Quassett Lake Association District 
board.
	8.  It is found that the July 3, 1997 letter is a public record within the meaning of 
1-18a(5) and 1-19(a), G.S.
	9.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state 
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public 
agency, whether or not such records are required by any 
law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and 
every person shall have the right to inspect such records 
promptly during regular office or business hours or to 
receive a copy of such records in accordance with the 
provisions of section 1-15.  Any agency rule or regulation, 
or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this 
subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights 
granted by this subsection shall be void.  [Emphasis added.]
	10.  It is found that the respondent’s reason for denying the complainant a copy 
of the July 3, 1997 letter, described in paragraph 6, above, constitutes a rule that 
conflicts with the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.
	11.  It is found that under the facts of this case the respondent failed to provide 
the complainant with a copy of the July 3, 1997 letter promptly, within the meaning of 
1-19(a), G.S.
	12.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-
19(a), G.S.
	13.  With respect to the complainant’s request for meeting schedules described 
in paragraph 2 above, 1-21, G.S., requires that each public agency provide the public 
with at least twenty four hours notice of all regular and special meetings.
	14.  It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with at least twenty 
four hours notice of all meetings concerning the Pomfret School use of Quassett Lake 
District property.
	15.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21(a), G.S.
	16.  The Commission does not find that a civil penalty is warranted in this 
matter.
	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of 
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
	1.  If any records responsive to the complainant’s request exist that have not yet 
been provided to the complainant, forthwith, the respondent shall provide the 
complainant with a copy of such records.
	2.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-
15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
 
 
	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of May 27, 1998.


_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Raymond F. Hallowell
125 Valley View Drive
South Windsor, CT 06074-2830
President, Quassett Lake District Association
c/o Brian J. Kennedy
P.O. Box 683
Putnam, CT 06260

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1997-270/FD/tcg/05291998