FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Anthony Barrett,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 87-193
Dean of Student Affairs and
Executive Dean, Western Connecticut State University,
Respondents May
11, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on August 6 and October 22, 1987, and March 2, 1988, at which times 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:
1. The respondent
deans, Western Connecticut State University, and its president are public
agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letters
dated June 1 and 22, 1987, the complainant requested the respondent executive
dean provide him with a copy of the bylaws of the University Foundation and the
Western One Hundred Society. The
complainant further requested that, if no such bylaws exist, the respondent
executive dean provide copies of documents describing the structure and
function of these two organizations.
3. By letter
dated June 12, 1987, the respondent dean of student affairs denied the
complainant's request.
4. By letter
dated June 25, 1987, and filed with the Commission on July 6, 1987, the
complainant appealed to the Commission from the denial of his request.
5. The
respondents claim the University Foundation and the Western One Hundred Society
are not public agencies and not subject to the open records provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act. The
respondents also claim they do not have the records in question.
Docket #FIC 87-193 Page
Two
6. It is found
that the University Foundation is an organization that acts as a conduit,
receiving and administering donations of private funds which it disburses to
aid specific activities of the university.
7. It is found
that the Western One Hundred Society is a group organized by the University
Foundation for people who contribute at least one hundred dollars annually to
the University Foundation.
8. It is found
that the University Foundation has written bylaws.
9. It is found
that the Western 100 Society has no separate written bylaws, but does have a
descriptive brochure about itself.
10. It is found
that at the time of the complainant's request these records were maintained by
the administrative assistant to the university's president, in her office at
the same address as the respondents' offices.
11. It is found
that the respondent executive dean is the secretary of the University
Foundation.
12. It is found
that in his capacity as dean, the respondent executive dean is the university's
official liaison with the University Foundation and spends up to ten percent of
his time as a public employee fulfilling his liaison duties.
13. It is found
that, sometime after the Commission held its hearing on August 6 and October
22, 1987, the respondent executive dean
moved all records of the University Foundation, including those described in
paragraphs 8 and 9, above, from the university's offices to a private location.
14. It is
concluded that the requested records were public records when the university
was maintaining them, including at the time the complainant requested them and
while the Commission held two days of its hearing on the matter.
15. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.,
by denying the complainant access to public records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
Docket #FIC 87-193 Page
Three
1. The
respondent executive dean forthwith shall either:
a. provide the complainant with a copy of the
University Foundation's written bylaws and the Western 100 Society's
descriptive brochure, or
b. show cause why the Commission should not
impose a civil penalty against him for withholding records without reasonable
grounds.
2. The
Commission abhors the executive dean's actions of removing the records and
attempting to change the outcome of this case while the Commission was still
holding its hearing on the matter.
3. In addition,
the Commission notes that the respondent dean's actions ignore the requirements
of §11-8, G.S., which provides for the retention and properly timed disposal of
state records.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission