Final Decision FIC2014-907
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION | |
|
Board of Finance, Town of Morris,
Complainant |
||
|
against
|
Docket #FIC 2014-907 | |
|
First Selectman, Town of Morris;
and Town of Morris, Respondents |
August 26, 2015 |
On January 30, 2015, the respondents moved to dismiss the above-captioned matter pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S., claiming that the Freedom of Information Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. The complainant board filed an objection to the motion, dated February 6, 2015, on February 9, 2015.
Upon review of the respondents’ motion and the complaint in this matter, the Commission hereby grants the respondents’ motion to dismiss for the following reasons:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter filed on December 22, 2014, the complainant board appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with a request that it be provided with copies of certain public records.
3. Based on the complainant board’s notice of appeal, it authorized its vice chairperson to file the appeal described in paragraph 2, above, on its behalf at its December 17, 2014 meeting.
4. Section 1-206(b)(4), G.S., provides that:
Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection to the contrary, in the case of an appeal to the commission of a denial by a public agency, the commission may, upon motion of such agency, confirm the action of the agency and dismiss the appeal without a hearing if it finds, after examining the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the appellant, that the agency has not violated the Freedom of Information Act.
5. The respondents argued in their January 30, 2015 motion to dismiss that the FOI Act does not grant to government boards or agencies, such as the complainant board, the right to request records under the Act or file appeals with the FOI Commission. The respondents requested that the FOI Commission dismiss the appeal pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S., contending that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.
6. The complainant contended in its objection that notwithstanding the respondents’ arguments to the contrary, it is a “person” under the FOI Act and therefore, the FOI Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint and the matter should be heard.
7. With respect to the complainant board’s allegation described in paragraph 2, above, §1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
“…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….” (emphasis added)
8. Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:
“Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission….” (emphasis added)
9. The FOI Act provides at §1-200(4), G.S., that “person” means “natural person, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association or society”.
10. Formerly, §1-21j-12(h) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies did use a broader definition of the term “person” which included “any governmental subdivision.” However, the narrower definition of the term “person” within the FOI Act is the controlling definition. See Rose v. Freedom of Information Act Commission, 221 Conn. 217, 228 (fn15) (1992).
11. It is concluded that the FOI Act confers the right to take an appeal from the denial of the right to inspect or copy records under §1-210, G.S., only to a “person” as defined in §1-200(4), G.S.
12. It is found that the complainant board is not a person within the meaning of §1-200(4), G.S.
13. With respect to the complainant board’s allegation in paragraph 2, above, it is concluded, after examining the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the complainant, that the respondents have not violated the FOI Act because the complainant board’s allegation does not constitute a denial of any right conferred by the FOI Act. The respondents’ motion to dismiss is therefore granted.
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 August 26, 2015.
__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Board of Finance, Town of Morris
c/o Barbara Burch, Vice Chairman
3 East Street
Morris, CT 06763
c/o Barbara Burch, Vice Chairman
3 East Street
Morris, CT 06763
First Selectman, Town of Morris;
and Town of Morris
c/o Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., Esq.
Halloran & Sage LLP
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
and Town of Morris
c/o Kenneth R. Slater, Jr., Esq.
Halloran & Sage LLP
225 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2014-907/FD/cac/8/26/2015