Final Decision FIC2013-020
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION | |
|
Socorro Barron,
Complainant |
||
|
against
|
Docket #FIC 2013-020 | |
|
Property Manager, Ridgefield Housing
Authority; and Ridgefield Housing Authority, Respondents |
July 24, 2013 |
The above-captioned matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket # FIC 2012-673, Socorro Barron v. Property Manager, Ridgefield Housing Authority; and Ridgefield Housing Authority. Both matters were scheduled to be heard as contested cases on June 5, 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 December 14, 2012, the complainant made a request to the respondents for “a copy of the Inspection report that Doug Sheperd had me sign on December 4, 2012” and “copies of the Inspection Reports for my apartment for the past five years (the “requested records”).
3. It is found that, by letter dated January 6, 2013 and filed with the Commission on January 14, 2013, 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”). The complainant also requested that the Commission assess a civil penalty of $1,000 against the respondent Authority and order that the respondent Property Manager attend an FOIA training session.
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. 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.
6. It is concluded that the requested records, if any exist, are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
7. It is found that on January 16, 2013, the respondent Property Manager provided a package of the requested records to the complainant. These records comprised U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development inspection forms as well as an inspection report dated May 7, 2008.
8. It is found that WinnResidential now manages the relevant property for the respondent Authority. WinnResidential has been managing the relevant properties only since 2011, and acknowledges that records management prior to 2011 was not diligent.
9. Based on the credible sworn testimony of Lucille Reynolds, an Executive Property Manager at WinnResidential, it is found that the respondents do not maintain any additional requested records, copies of which have not been provided to the complainant.
10. 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.
11. It is found that no relief or civil penalty is appropriate, given the conclusion that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act.
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
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:
Socorro Barron
P.O. Box 127
Ridgefield, CT 06877
P.O. Box 127
Ridgefield, CT 06877
Property Manager, Ridgefield Housing Authority;
and Ridgefield Housing Authority
c/o Andrew J. Buzzi, Jr., Esq.
69 North Street
Danbury, CT 06810
and Ridgefield Housing Authority
c/o Andrew J. Buzzi, Jr., Esq.
69 North Street
Danbury, CT 06810
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2013-020/FD/cac/7/24/2013