As of September 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Commission meetings and contested case hearings will resume being conducted in person. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for their contested case hearings and Commission meetings. Please access this link or contact the Commission for further information.

Final Decision FIC2012-618
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Diane Reed,
     Complainant
against
Docket #FIC 2012-618
Mayor, Town of Plymouth; Director,
Human Resources, Town of Plymouth; and Town of Plymouth,
     Respondents
June 12, 2013

     The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 19, 2013, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.
     2.  It is found that by letter dated September 5, 2012, the complainant made a request to the respondent Director, for the job description of the Administrative Assistant to the Mayor. By letters dated October 17, 2012, the complainant renewed her request, this time directing identical requests to both the respondent Mayor and the respondent Director (the “requested records”).
     3.  It is found that, by letter dated October 22, 2012, the respondent Mayor stated that following an earlier request “a member of my office could not locate such document.” The letter continued: “Upon further investigation, in an archival research, I came across an outdated job description, which I have enclosed.” The respondent Mayor’s letter had as enclosures two job descriptions, one for an “Administrative Assistant to the Mayor”, the other for an “Administrative Manager to the Mayor”, both of which included handwritten editing of typed copy.
     4.  It is found that, by letter dated October 24, 2012 and filed with the Commission on October 31, 2012, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the failure of the respondents to provide the requested records violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
     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.  Sections 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., state, respectively, in relevant parts:
          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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 
          …
          Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record. 
     7.  It is concluded that the requested records are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
     8.  Based upon the sworn testimony of the respondent Mayor, it is found that the respondents have performed a diligent search involving relevant personnel and that the respondents do not maintain any records within the scope of the complainant’s request other than those provided to her with the respondent Mayor’s letter of October 22, 2012.
     9.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide copies of requested records which they maintained.
          
     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 12, 2013.

__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:
Diane Reed
5 Chidsey Terrace
Terryville, CT  06789
Mayor, Town of Plymouth; Director,
Human Resources, Town of Plymouth;
and Town of Plymouth
c/o Salvatore V. Vitrano, Esq.
135 West Street
Bristol, CT  06010
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2012-618/FD/cac/6/12/2013