FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Ethan Book, Jr.,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC1998-272
Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority,
Respondents February 24, 1999

         The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 13, 1998, 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. By letter dated August 17, 1998, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of:

a. a completed Tax Compliance Certificate (hereinafter "the Certificate") and Non-Arbitrage Certificate relating to certain bank notes which had been referenced by the respondent in a November 21, 1997, letter to the complainant, and which the complainant alleged had been provided to him in incomplete form;

b. documentation which would evidence the portion of the Federal Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act to which a December 3, 1985 Bridgeport Post public notice referenced in Section 22 of the Certificate allegedly refers;

c. a Tax Letter of Representation of the respondent dated December 31, 1985 as referenced in section 22 of the Certificate;

d. documentation establishing the authority of Michael Cawley to conduct public hearings dealing with the issue of tax-exempt financing, as referenced in Section 22 of the Certificate; and

e. documents establishing the approval of the State Treasurer for initial financing for the redevelopment of the Bridgeport project.

Additionally, the complainant requested access to:

f. the records and transcripts of a December 18, 1985 public hearing as referenced in Section 22 of the Certificate.

        3. By letter dated August 17, 1998, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request and informed him it was under review.

        4. Having failed to receive the requested records, by letter dated and filed September 9, 1998, the complainant alleged that the respondent thereby violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

        5. It is found that, to the extent that they exist, the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

        6. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

[e]xcept 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….

        7. It is found that the respondent’s initial provision of the record described in paragraph 2.a, above, was complete, and that there are no missing pages which had not been provided to the complainant. It is further found that the respondent is entitled to collect the statutory fee allowable under 1-15, G.S., prior to providing a second copy of such record to the complainant.

        8. It is also found that the Certificate does not contain a Section 22, nor does it otherwise reference the documents described in paragraphs 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, and 2.f, above.

        9. It is concluded that the records sought in paragraphs 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, and 2.f, above, do not exist as described.

        10. It is found that the request described in paragraph 2.e, above, is actually a request for subjective legal analysis, rather than a request for copies of specific records.

        11. It is concluded that the FOI Act does not require the respondent to comply with the request described in paragraph 2.e, above.

        12. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.

        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 February 24, 1999.

 

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

Ethan Book, Jr.
PO Box 1385
Fairfield, CT 06432
Connecticut Resources
Recovery Authority
c/o Atty. Michael G. Tansley
Cicchetti & Tansley
500 Chase Parkway
Waterbury, CT 06708-3343

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1998-272FD/mrb02251999