FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Misty Williams and Dawn Massey,  
  Complainants  
  against   Docket #FIC 2004-476

Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor,

Town of Branford,

 
  Respondent July 27, 2005
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 26, 2005, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the hearing, the hearing officer granted Dawn Massey party status and the case caption was modified accordingly.  For purposes of hearing, contested cases, docket #s FIC 2004-442, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford, FIC 2004-510, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford and FIC 2004-544, Misty Williams and Dawn Massey v. Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor, Town of Branford were consolidated with the above-captioned case.

                             

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.  It is found that by letters dated September 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, October 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, 2004, the complainants made twenty requests to the respondent requesting “a certified copy on paper of the town’s record” or “a certified copy on paper of the complete town record” that identifies the individual who inspected/appraised the following properties, and the date such individual inspected the property:

 

i)     3 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

ii)   18 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

iii)   27 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

iv)   17 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

v)    15 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

vi)   225 Stony Creek Road – inspection for the 2003 Grand  

List;

vii)   3 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

viii)  23 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

ix)    7 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

x)     23 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2004 Grand List;

xi)    16 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xii)   11 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xiii)  25 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand 

List;

xiv)   13 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xv)    18 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xvi)    17 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xvii)   15 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xviii)   27 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xix)     5 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List; and

xx)      21 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List.

 

3.  It is found that by letters dated September 20, 24, 29, October 5 and 6, 2004, the respondent, through Trista Clyne, Administrative Assistant to the First Selectman, acknowledged receipt of eighteen of the requests, and indicated that the Town of Branford (“town”) would review its records to locate any responsive documents and would notify the complainants accordingly.

 

4.    By letter dated October 12, 2004 and filed on October 15, 2004, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information  Act by failing to provide them with the certified records requested.  The complainants requested that civil penalties be imposed upon the respondent.

 

 5.  It is found that Trista Clyne received all of the records requests, as described in paragraph 2, above, and such requests are the ones at issue in this appeal.

 

6.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides that:

 

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 … (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  [Emphasis added].

 

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

 

8.  With respect to the requests as described in paragraph 2, above, it is found that as of the date of receipt of such requests the respondent maintained or kept on file at least two records that are responsive to such requests.  Those two records constitute public records within the meaning of 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., and were identified at the hearing in this matter as Complainants’ Exhibit H (a copy of a field card) and Respondent’s Exhibit 1 (a copy of a list indicating properties Mike Milici was assigned to inspect).  Both Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1 are responsive to the complainants’ request for records concerning 225 Stony Creek Road and the property inspection for the 2003 Grand List.

 

9.  It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainants with a certified copy of Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1.

 

10.  With respect to the complainants’ request for records concerning the properties described in paragraph 2, above, except 225 Stony Creek Road, it is unclear from the record whether records responsive to the complainants’ requests exist.

 

11.  Consequently, it is concluded that to the extent the respondent maintains records concerning the properties described in paragraph 2, above (except 225 Stony Creek Road), that are responsive to the complainants’ requests, and have not provided the complainants with a certified copy of such records, the respondent violated 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.  However, to the extent that no records exist that are responsive to the complainants’ requests, the respondent did not violate 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

12.  The complainants’ request to consider the imposition of a civil penalty is denied.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  The respondent shall:

 

a)                            provide the complainants with a certified copy of Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1, if such certified copies have not yet been provided;

 

b)                            search the town’s records wherever located and provide the

                 complainants with a certified copy of any additional existing records

                 found, (including, but not limited to records similar to field cards and

                 lists such as Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1)

                 whether such records are stored electronically or in paper format,

                 concerning the following properties, and which records identify in any

                 way a person(s) or business entity that was either assigned to, or did

                 inspect the following properties:

 

i)    3 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

ii)   18 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

iii)   27 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

iv)   17 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

v)    15 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

vi)   3 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

vii)  23 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

viii)    7 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

ix)     23 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2004 Grand List;

x)    16 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xi)   11 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xii)  25 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xiii)   13 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2002 Grand List;

xiv)    18 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xv)    17 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xvi)   15 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xvii)   27 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List;

xviii)     5 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List; and

xix)      21 Sybil Creek Place – inspection for the 2003 Grand List.

 

2.  If no records are found, the respondent shall forthwith, provide the complainants with an affidavit indicating that after a complete and thorough search of the town’s records no records responsive to the complainants’ requests, except Complainants’ Exhibit H and Respondent’s Exhibit 1, were found.  Such affidavit shall indicate the nature and extent of the respondent’s search.    

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 27, 2005.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Misty Williams

225 Stony Creek Road

Branford, CT 06405

 

Dawn Massey

225 Stony Creek Road

Branford, CT 06405

 

Jill Wood, Assistant to Assessor,

Town of Branford

c/o Elizabeth P. Gilson, Esq.

383 Orange Street

New Haven, CT 06511

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2004-476FD/paj/8/3/2005