FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Misty Williams,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2004-421

Robert Moore, Director, Human Resources

Department, Town of Branford,

 
  Respondent August 24, 2005
       

            

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 4, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   The matter was consolidated for hearing with docket #FIC 2004-428, Misty Williams v. Robert Moore, Director, Human Resources Department, Town of Branford;  and docket #FIC 2004-495, Misty Williams v. Robert Moore, Director, Human Resources Department, Town of Branford.  Dawn Massey’s petition for intervenor status pursuant to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies 1-21j-31(a) was granted, without objection.

 

            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 of complaint filed September 13, 2004, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her requests for copies of public records, by providing incomplete copies of public records, and by improperly certifying copies of public records.   

 

            3.  It is found that on various occasions, beginning on May 19, 2004 and continuing through August 25, 2004, the complainant requested copies of payroll records and back-up documentation from the respondent.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent replied promptly to each of the complainant’s requests, and each time provided all the responsive records that existed.  In each case that the complainant requested a certified copy, the respondent provided a written certification that the record was a true copy of the record on file with the respondent.

 

5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

7.  It is found that the records provided to the complainant are public records within the meaning of 1-200(5) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.  The complainant maintains that the respondent failed to provide all the records that were requested.

 

            9.  However, it is found that the respondent provided all the records it maintains that are responsive to the complainant’s requests.          

 

10.  The complainant alleged that the respondent’s certifications were improper.  However, at the hearing the complainant withdrew that portion of her complaint so that the issue could be decided in a different complaint.

 

            11.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-212(a), G.S.

 

            12.  The respondent moved for the imposition of a civil penalty, pursuant to 1-206(b)(2), G.S.

 

            13.  Section 1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

If the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, after such person has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. …

 

            14.  It is found that the complainant produced virtually no credible evidence in support of her claim.  Rather, the complaint appeared to be based on the complainant’s belief, unsubstantiated by the evidence on the record, that she had been deceived by the respondent, and that the respondent “should” have records that he in fact reasonably did not ever create.

 

15.  It is concluded that the complainant took this appeal frivolously and without reasonable grounds.

 

16.  However, it is found that the complainant did not take this appeal solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent.

 

            17.  The respondent’s motion for the imposition of a civil penalty is therefore denied.

 

            18.  However, it is found that the necessity of hearing of this complaint constituted a misuse of the commission's administrative process.  Most of the evidence offered by the complainant demonstrated little more than microscopic or imagined inconsistencies in the actions of the respondent, and most of her argument demonstrated an apparently willful misapplication of the relevant law.     

 

19.  The complainant moved for additional alternative relief, requesting affidavits from the respondent attesting to the nature and extent of his searches for the records requested by the complainant.

 

            20.  The complainant also moved for the imposition of civil penalties against the respondent.     

 

21.  It is found, however, that no relief or civil penalties are appropriate, given the conclusion that the respondent did not violate 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 dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 24, 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

 

Robert Moore,

Director, Human Resources Department,

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/2004-421FD/paj/8/29/2005