FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 10, 2007, 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 public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated December 26, 2006, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with “a copy of all submittals destined for . . . [the Capital Improvement Plan].”

 

3.  By letter of complaint dated December 29, 2006, and filed January 5, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by not complying with his request for records.

 

4.  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.

 

5.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part 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.

 

6.  Section 1-212(a)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

 

7.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent testified that he understood the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2, above, to be for all submissions from any town board or commission received by respondent for consideration of inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan.

            8.  In response, the complainant testified that he was seeking all submissions from any town board or commission received by the respondent for consideration of inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan, as well as any of the respondent’s staff’s notes or work product relevant to the Capital Improvement Plan. 

9.  It is found that the respondent’s staff’s notes and work product relevant to the Capital Improvement Plan are outside the scope of the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2, above.

 

10.  It is further found that on December 26, 2006 the respondent did not keep on file or maintain any submissions relevant to the Capital Improvement Plan.   

            11.  It is further found that subsequent to the complainant’s December 26, 2006 request and his December 29, 2006 complaint, the respondent received various board and commission submissions, and forwarded copies of the same to the complainant.

            12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint. 

           

13.    The Commission notes that the complainant is free to request additional records in a separate request to the respondent.

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 June 13, 2007.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Bradshaw Smith

23 Ludlow Road

Windsor, CT 06095

 

Peter Souza, Town Manager,

Town of Windsor

c/o Vincent W. Oswecki, Jr., Esq.

20 Maple Avenue

PO Box 504

Windsor, CT 06095-0504

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

FIC/2007-008FD/paj/6/25/2007