The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 23, 2015, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and stipulated to certain facts.  This matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 2014-488, Torrey Townsend v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven et al.

     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.  By letter of complaint filed August 6, 2014, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with her requests for a fee waiver.

     3.  Section 1-212(d)(1), G.S., provides that a “public agency shall waive any fee provided for in this section when … [t]he person requesting the records is an indigent individual ….”

     4.  At the hearing the parties stipulated, and it is found, that the complainant received all the records she requested, but there was a delay and her request was not responded to promptly. The reason for the lack of promptness was the lack of a policy with respect to indigent persons who are not inmates.  The New Haven Records Unit indigence policy only extended as far as inmates and the Public Defenders’ office, and it did not have a policy that addressed requests for records from indigent persons who were not inmates or clients of public defenders.  For that reason there was some time that elapsed prior to getting all the records to the complainant.  The New Haven Records Unit is in the process of developing a policy that will probably essentially be a federal poverty standard as demonstrated by a tax return.

     5.  The complainant did not allege or testify that she was required to pay for the copies of the records that were provided to her; and the issue of the lack of promptness of the provision of the records to her has been addressed in Docket #FIC 2014-488, Torrey Townsend v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven et al.

     6.  Consequently, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-212(d)(1), G.S.

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

     1. The complaint is dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 10, 2015.

__________________________
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:

Torrey Townsend
39 Orchard Place
New Haven, CT  06511

Chief, Police Department, City of City of New Haven;
Police Department, City of New Haven; and
City of New Haven
c/o Kathleen Foster, Esq.
Office of the Corporation Counsel
165 Church Street
New Haven, CT  06570

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2014-522/FD/cac/6/10/2015