The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) recently found that former Thomaston Zoning Enforcement Officer and Land Use Administrator Stacey Sefcik violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when she refused to make copies of requested records.

Sefcik’s refusal to make copies of records, which she claimed her office did not have time to do and was not obligated to make under FOIA, was in response to a request from Thomaston resident Nancy Griswold.

Secfick previously unsuccessfully tried to have Griswold labeled a vexatious requester.

On September 6, 2022, Griswold requested a number of zoning records, including reports on enforcement activities from April 7, 2022, to September 6, 2022; Thomaston’s Planning and Zoning Commission’s Standard Zoning Enforcement Procedures; and all zoning complaints made between 2007 and the date of Griswold’s request. Griswold also requested a spreadsheet Stefcik had generated to prioritize the complaints, as well as all emails related to the complaints.

Three days later, Sefcik acknowledged the request and, while she turned over some records according to the FOIC’s finding, she also “informed [Griswold] that it would be difficult and time-consuming to retrieve emails from old email accounts” and told her she would have to confirm the request if she wanted the search for all emails to be conducted. Additionally, she told Griswold that if she wanted to receive all zoning complaints as requested she would have to set up an appointment to inspect the records at the zoning office.

On October 21, 2022, Griswold narrowed the portion of her request relating to zoning complaints. According to the hearing officer’s report for the complaint, Sefcik wrote “[a]t this time I do not intend to inspect any public records in person. However, in an effort to prioritize and refine any outstanding or future requests, I would like to request a copy of all emails [Stefcik] ha[s] sent or received from February 2019 to present.”

Several days later, on October 25, Sefcik acknowledged the narrowed request and reiterated earlier statements that releasing responsive documents would take “considerable time.” She also reiterated her earlier statement that certain documents were available to view in person at the zoning office. In addition, Sefcik wrote, “[no] one in this office will be making these copies for you; we are under no obligation to do so, we do not have the time to do so, and therefore we will NOT be doing so.”

Nearly a year later, on October 18, 2023, Griswold requested an update on the status of her request. On October 25, 2023, Sefcik reiterated statements from her October 25, 2022 email according to the hearing officer’s report, including the considerable time she said it would take to review responsive records and that she had been offered the opportunity to inspect records in person but had refused to do so.

On October 26, 2023, Griswold filed a complaint with the FOIC alleging Sefcik had violated FOIA. She also requested the commission impose a civil penalty.

At an initial hearing on the complaint, Griswold confirmed that the only records that were an issue were the zoning complaints and related emails and that her contention violated FOIA’s requirement that public records be turned over promptly once a request has been submitted.

Also at the hearing, Sefcik testified that the number of records responsive to the zoning complaints and related emails elements of Griswold’s request was “unquantifiable.” Sefcik further stated that she spent “several hours one morning searching for responsive records and was able to locate approximately six months’ worth of responsive emails.”

The hearing officer further found that, as of a continued hearing held on September 6, 2024, nearly two years after Griswold narrowed her request, no responsive records had been released. The FOIC ultimately found that Sefcik violated FOIA’s promptness requirement.

The hearing officer’s report noted that, as Griswold narrowed her request to three years’ worth of records, Sefcik should have been able to locate responsive emails over the course of six mornings based on Sefcik’s statement that she had located six months of emails with several hours’ search on one morning.

The hearing officer’s report notes that while Griswold “did not specify the importance of the requested records,” she did follow-up multiple times. Sefcik also told the hearing officer, after a question about whether she was aware of the records’ importance to Griswold, that “I gather she wants them.” Sefcik also reportedly stated multiple times during hearings on the complaint that it is Thomaston’s policy to direct the public to inspect records in person.

During an October 9 meeting where the FOIC considered the hearing officer’s report, an attorney for Thomaston disputed the characterization that the request had been denied. She also stated that requests for clarification to the requests were not answered and questioned whether the appeal had been entered within the 30-day time period required by state statute. The attorney argued the 30-day period to file an appeal should have expired a month after the initial request was submitted.

Commissioner Christopher Hankins, who served as a hearing officer in the complaint, disputed the attorney’s assertion that the FOIC had no jurisdiction over the matter because the time to appeal had expired. He also reiterated arguments made in the hearing officer’s report.

However, the FOIC found that the town’s policy of refusing to make copies of records upon request and requiring requesters to view records in person violates FOIA. Sec. 1-212 of the law requires anyone who makes a request to receive “a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.” While the type of copy provided is within the discretion of a public agency, providing a copy of a record on request is not. The FOIC voided the town’s policy as a result.

The commission declined to impose a civil penalty and ordered the zoning office to turn over responsive records for free within 30 days. They also noted that while Sefcik indicated some records might contain information that is exempt from disclosure due to attorney-client privilege and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), she did not cite any evidence of that. They stipulated that, if records are found exempt, Griswold must be notified. If Griswold decided to appeal any of the exemptions, the complaint would be expedited.

The hearing officer’s report also noted that there was a “significant history” between Griswold and Sefcik, who left her position in Thomaston in August. The report concludes that while Sefcik testified that “for a time” she and Griswold were able to work together, “that such relationship is no longer amicable and that the processing of this FOI request became mired in the acrimonious relationship between the parties.”

On October 25, 2022–the same day that Sefcik responded to Griswold’s narrowed request and told her she would not make copies of records–Sefcik filed a petition to have Griswold, as well as her son William Griswold, labeled a vexatious requester.

It was the fifth time anyone had attempted to use the law, passed in 2018, which allows public agencies to seek to have individuals who abuse FOIA labeled vexatious and granted a one-year reprieve from answering their requests.

Three requests and three follow-up requests formed the basis of Sefcik’s complaint. Sefcik alleged she had not received responses to requests for clarification and had not received payment for an initial request. The FOIC ultimately found that Griswold’s requests did not demonstrate a “vexatious history” and denied the petition.

In April 2024, Inside Investigator requested a record of all FOIA requests the Thomaston zoning office had received between January 1, 2022, and April 24, 2024. Stefcik promptly responded with a log she used to track requests that dated back to 2020.

In total, it included 22 requests, including the one submitted by Inside Investigator. Nine requests had been submitted by Griswold during that time period, as well as two by Griswold’s brother. Sefcik noted the relationship in the log. A number of requests were marked “completed via email.” The log also contained notes about the status of requests.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.