FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Ron Robillard and The Chronicle
Printing Company, Inc.,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1998-176
President, Windham Mills Development
Corporation; and Windham Mills
Development Corporation,
Respondents July 22, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 24, 1998, 
at which time the complainants and respondents appeared and presented testimony, 
exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket #FIC 1997-374, Ron Robillard and The 
Chronicle Printing Company, Inc. v. Chairman, Northeast Connecticut Economic 
Alliance Inc., and Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc., was consolidated with 
the above-captioned matter for purpose of hearing.  Certain Windham Mills Development 
Corporation records including, by-laws, minutes, financial statements and assistance 
agreements were reviewed in camera.
	After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and 
conclusions of law are reached:
	1.  It is found that by letter dated October 10, 1997, the complainants requested 
that the respondent president provide them with a copy of the lease for the new mill 
tenant “you mentioned at Tuesday’s Board of Selectmen meeting” (hereinafter “requested 
record”).
	2.  It is found that the respondent president denied the request by letter dated 
October 28, 1997, indicating that the respondent corporation is not a public agency.
	3.  Having failed to receive a copy of the requested record the complainants, by 
letter dated November 20, 1997, and filed with the Commission on November 26, 1997, 
appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of 
Information (“FOI”) Act.
	4.  The test for determining whether entities such as the respondents are public 
agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(1), G.S., is set forth in Board of Trustees of 
Woodstock Academy v. FOI Commission, 181 Conn. 544 (1980), and consists of the 
following four criteria:
(a)  whether the entity performs a governmental function;
(b)  the level of government funding;
(c)  the extent of government involvement or regulation; and
(d)  whether the entity was created by government.
	5.  The Supreme Court in Connecticut Humane Society v. FOI Commission, 
218 Conn. 757, 761 (1991), advocated a case by case application of the Woodstock 
criteria, and established that all four of the foregoing criteria are not necessary for a 
finding of “functional equivalence”.  Rather “[a]ll relevant factors are to be considered 
cumulatively, with no single factor being essential or conclusive.”
	6.  It is found that the respondent corporation owns, operates and develops the 
Windham Mills property, which consists of approximately forty acres.
	7.  It is also found that the respondent corporation renovated buildings, installed 
new utilities and engaged in environment cleaning up of the property.
	8.  It is further found that the respondent corporation contracted with tenants to 
lease portions of the property.
	9.  It is concluded that the respondent corporation does not perform a 
governmental function.
	10.  It is found that the respondent corporation is funded primarily by loans from 
the Bank of Boston.
	11.  It is also found that the respondent corporation receives loans from the state 
of Connecticut.
	12.  It is concluded that the respondent corporation does not receive substantial 
government funding.
	13.  It is found that as a result of the loans received from the state, the respondent 
corporation is subject to certain public reporting procedures.
	14.  It is also found that the respondent corporation is governed by a five member 
board of directors.  The board elects directors whenever vacancies arise.
	15.  It is further found that there is no government involvement in the day to day 
activities of the corporation.  The redevelopment of the property is operated and managed 
by a private construction management firm.
	16.  It is concluded that the respondents are not subject to substantial government 
involvement or regulation.
	17.  It is found that the respondent corporation is a nonstock, nonprofit 
corporation, exempt from federal income tax pursuant to 501(c)(4) of the Internal 
Revenue Code.
	18.  It is also found that the respondent corporation was created in 1994 by 
Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc. in conjunction with Northeast’s 
“municipal development project”.  The respondent corporation was created to acquire and 
redevelop the Windham Mills property.
	19.  In light of the commission’s conclusion in docket # FIC 1997-374 that 
Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc. is a public agency within the meaning 1-
18a(a), G.S., it is concluded that the respondent corporation was created by the 
government.
	20.  However, based upon the totality of all relevant factors, it is concluded that 
the respondents are not public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S., and 
therefore, not subject to the FOI Act.
	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 regular 
meeting of July 22, 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:
Ron Robillard and The Chronicle Printing Company, Inc.
c/o Ron Robillard
One Chronicle Road
P.O. Box 148
Willimantic, CT 06226-0148
President, Windham Mills Development Corporation; and Windham Mills Development 
Corporation
c/o Atty. Lisa Silvestri
56 Arbor Street
Hartford, CT 06106
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1997-428/FD/tcg/07291998