Final Decision FIC2012-701
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION | |
|
Richard Saluga,
Complainant |
||
|
against
|
Docket #FIC 2012-701 | |
|
Assessor, Town of Brookfield; and
Town of Brookfield, Respondents |
July 24, 2013 |
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 24, 2013, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that, by letter dated December 5, 2012, the complainant requested that the respondents permit him to inspect a very comprehensive list of documents pertaining to the assessment of his real property, including field cards, correspondence, spreadsheets, calendars, meeting minutes, policies, the contract with VISION Government Solutions, Inc., and so forth, including payroll records, stipends and expenses of town officials and employees connected with the assessment process.
3. By letter of complaint filed December 17, 2012, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for access to the records described in paragraph 2, above.
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 (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 supplied).
6. It is found that the respondents contracted with Vision Government Solutions (“Vision”) to assist them with the town’s reevaluation process.
7 . It is found that Vision made property assessment calculations based on data supplied by the respondents, using proprietary software. The Commission has previously concluded that the software used by Vision to calculate assessments is a trade secret, and therefore permissibly exempt from disclosure, pursuant to §1-210(b)(5)(A), G.S., which provides that disclosure is not required of:
Trade secrets, which for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act, are defined as information, including formulas, patterns, compilations, programs, devices, methods, techniques, processes, drawings, cost data, customer lists, film or television scripts or detailed production budgets that (i) derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from their disclosure or use, and (ii) are the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain secrecy ….
See Docket #FIC 2009-244, Cole v. Office of the Assessor, Town of Sharon.
8. It is found that the respondents, within a month of the complainant’s request, made available to him, on a town computer, approximately 1100 pages of documents, consisting of data used in the assessment process.
9. It is also found that the respondents also provided the complainant with access to all field cards and an appraisal manual from Vision, as soon as those documents were provided to the respondents in February 2013.
10. It is additionally found that the respondents provided the complainant with access to or copies of meeting minutes, audio recordings of meetings where available, emails, a summary appraisal report, the contract with Vision, the request for proposals that preceded that contract, the file folders of individual board of assessment appeal members, and the salaries and expenses of town officials and employees associated with the assessment process.
11. It is found that the respondents conducted a diligent search for the many records requested by the complainant, and withheld no records from him. It is further concluded that the respondents’ provision of access to the records was reasonably prompt under the circumstances.
12. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.
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 July 24, 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:
Richard Saluga
32 Great Heron Lane
Brookfield, CT 06804
32 Great Heron Lane
Brookfield, CT 06804
Assessor, Town of Brookfield; and
Town of Brookfield
c/o Nathan Zezula, Esq.
Cohen and Wolf, P.C.
158 Deer Hill Avenue
Danbury, CT 06810
Town of Brookfield
c/o Nathan Zezula, Esq.
Cohen and Wolf, P.C.
158 Deer Hill Avenue
Danbury, CT 06810
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2012-701/FD/cac/7/24/2013