FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

A-Tel,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

 Docket #FIC 2000-329

Department of Public Works, City of Milford,

 

 

Respondents

October 25, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 31, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated June 2, 2000 to the respondent, the complainant made a request for copies of certain records including “copies of any and all existing ordinances, regulations and permit process regarding the installation of pay phones on city/town property or rights of ways.”

 

3.      By letter dated June 26, 2000 and filed on June 28, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to fully comply with his request.

 

4.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“[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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  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.”

 

5.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

6.      It is found that to the extent records exist that are responsive to the complainant’s request, such records are public records within the meaning of  §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.      It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with records responsive to the complainant’s June 2, 2000 request but did not include any records responsive to that portion of the request specifically described in paragraph 2, above.

 

8.      It is found that when the complainant made further inquiries regarding that portion of the request specifically described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent’s counsel informed the complainant, by letter dated July 21, 2000, that it was her “impression that no local law exists with respect to pay telephones” but that she would not “categorically state that no law could in any way affect pay telephones.” 

 

9.      The complainant contends that the respondent’s response of July 21, 2000, was not sufficient because it was ambiguous and non-responsive to that portion of the request specifically described in paragraph 2, above.

 

10.  The respondent contends that the July 21, 2000 letter is clear in conveying that there are no ordinances, regulations or permit processes pertaining specifically to the installation of pay phones on city/town property or rights of ways, but that existing ordinances, regulations and permit processes may affect such installation.

 

11.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain any ordinances, regulations or permit processes regarding the installation of pay phones on city/town property or rights of ways and although the respondent’s response was somewhat elusive, it clearly informed the complainant that no additional records existed responsive its request.

 

12.  It is therefore found that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

13.  By letter dated July 11, 2000 and filed on July 13, 2000 to this Commission, the respondent requested the imposition of civil penalties against the complainant for filing a frivolous appeal.

 

14.  It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the appeal taken by the complainant in this matter was taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent, as required for the imposition of civil penalties pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S.

 

15.  Consequently, the respondent’s request for the imposition of civil penalties is hereby denied.

 

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.

 

2.      The Commission encourages the respondent to use clearer and less elusive language in future responses to records requests.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 2000.

 

 

_________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski 

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:

 

A-Tel, Inc.

c/o Donal C. Collimore, Esq.

Collimore and Collimore

1150 Post Road

Fairfield, CT  06430-6040

 

Department of Public Works,

City of Milford

c/o Marilyn J. Lipton, Esq.

City Attorney

City Hall

110 River Street

Milford, CT  06460

 

 

__________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC2000-329FD/mes10262000