Final Decision FIC2013-234
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION | |
|
Donald Steinbrick,
Complainant |
||
|
against
|
Docket #FIC 2013-234 | |
|
Mayor, Town of Putnam; and Town of
Putnam, Respondents |
April 9, 2014 |
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 25, 2014, at which time the complainant appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondents failed to appear and the hearing officer was unable to determine whether the respondents had received notice of such hearing. A continued hearing was held on March 11, 2014, 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), G.S.
2. It is found that, by letter dated March 11, 2013, the complainant requested that the respondent mayor provide him with copies of the following:
a. “the most recent [audit] extension signed by [the respondent mayor];"
b. "any previous [audit] extensions granted to CCR for this same FY report;" and
c. “any emails or other information relating to the reasoning behind granting [the audit] extensions to CCR in preparing the town’s FY2012 audit report.”
(hereinafter the "requested records").
3. It is found that, by letter dated March 15, 2013, the respondents’ town administrator, acknowledged the complainant’s March 11, 2013 request. It is also found that, with such letter, the respondents’ administrator provided the complainant with copies of two audit extensions for filing financial and state single audits, along with emails relating to the requests for audit extensions. It is further found that the respondents’ administrator informed the complainant that the respondents were still searching their files for the initial 30-day audit extension request for the January period (hereinafter the “initial audit extension”) and that the respondents would forward a copy of such record to the complainant once it was located.
4. It is found that, by letter dated April 5, 2013, the complainant filed a request with the State of Connecticut’s Office of Policy and Management (hereinafter “OPM”), for copies of documents related to the audit extensions described in paragraph 2, above. It is also found that, on April 11, 2013, OPM provided the complainant with copies of responsive records which included the initial audit extension.
5. By letter of complaint dated April 14, 2013 and filed April 17, 2013, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide all of the records described in paragraph 2, above.
6. 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.
7. 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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
8. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”
9. It is concluded that the records requested by the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.
10. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that, while the respondents provided him with most of the responsive records, including two of the three audit extensions granted by the Town of Putnam, the respondents failed to provide him with a copy of the initial audit extension. The complainant also contended that he had to make a request to OPM in order to obtain a copy of the initial audit extension he originally requested from the respondents. The complainant requested that the respondents be required to attend an FOI Act training session.
11. It is found that, within four days of the complainant’s March 11, 2013 request, the respondents promptly provided the complainant with all responsive records described in paragraph 2, above, except for the initial audit extension. It is also found that the respondents conducted a diligent search for all of the records described in paragraph 2, above, but could not locate a copy of the initial audit extension. It is further found that the respondents did not keep on file or maintain a copy of such audit extension within their offices at the time of the requests described in paragraph 2, above, or at the time of the complaint described in paragraph 5, above.
12. The complainant contends that the respondents could have fully complied with his request described in paragraph 2, above, by obtaining copies of the initial audit extension from OPM. However, the Commission notes that the complainant had already obtained such record from OPM prior to filing the complaint in this matter. While it is unfortunate that the respondents apparently misplaced the initial audit extension, the Commission finds that they were sincere in their efforts to locate it.
13. Therefore, it is concluded that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the initial audit extension.
14. There being no violation of the FOI Act, the Commission declines to consider the complainant’s request that the respondents be required to attend an FOI Act training session.
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 April 9, 2014.
__________________________
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.
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:
Donald Steinbrick
c/o Norman B. Seney, Jr., Esq.
171 Elmwood Hill Road
Thompson, CT 06277
c/o Norman B. Seney, Jr., Esq.
171 Elmwood Hill Road
Thompson, CT 06277
Mayor, Town of Putnam; and Town of Putnam
c/o William H. St. Onge, Esq.
St. Onge & Brouillard
P.O. Box 550
Putnam, CT 06260-0550
c/o William H. St. Onge, Esq.
St. Onge & Brouillard
P.O. Box 550
Putnam, CT 06260-0550
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2013-234/FD/cac/4/9/2014