130 Conn. App. 448
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Pomfret Planning and Zoning Commission held Jan 9 and Jan 15, 2008 meetings to discuss draft home occupation zoning amendments.
- During these meetings, Fay, Boster, and Hennen orally requested copies of documents (draft memorandum Jan 8, 2008 and related counsel letter); requests denied.
- Two to three days after Jan 15, Fay and Boster obtained copies; Fay filed FOI complaints alleging improper denial and lack of open government.
- Commission’s final decisions (Jan 14, 2009) found denial violated § 1-212(a) timing and that requests were not required to be in writing.
- Superior Court reversed, ruling timing not violated because requests occurred after regular hours; appealed by FOI commission.
- Appellate Court affirmed the trial court on alternate ground: writing requirement of § 1-212(a) was not satisfied because requests were oral.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral requests satisfied § 1-212(a) writing requirement | Fay/Boster/Hennen complied with open records rights by requesting copies | Requests must be in writing under § 1-212(a) | Requests not in writing; § 1-212(a) not satisfied |
| Whether denial of oral requests must be in writing under § 1-206 | Agency denial should be in writing only when properly invoked | § 1-206(a) requires written denial when proper request is made | No waiver; denial obligation not triggered due to lack of proper written request |
| Whether the court properly construed § 1-210(a) and § 1-212(a) | Court misinterpreted writing requirement and timing implications | Statutes plain and unambiguous; require writing for § 1-212(a) requests | Court correctly concluded writing is required; affirmed on alternative ground |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeFrancesco, 235 Conn. 426 (1995) (writing requirement for obtaining copies enforced)
- State v. Boysaw, 99 Conn.App. 358 (2007) (statutory meaning determined by plain text and relationships)
- Sweetman v. State Elections Enforcement Comm., 249 Conn. 296 (1999) (agency deference in pure questions of law limited; court interprets statute)