FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Dick Conrad and New Haven
Register,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-317
Superintendent of Schools of
the City of New Haven,
Respondent May
11, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on March 1, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On
January 23, 1987 the complainant newspaper, through one of its reporters, made
a request of the respondent for the opportunity to review "all public
documents coming in or going out of your office regarding citizens, other city
departments or state departments."
3. On or
about March 2, 1987 the complainants filed a complaint with the Commission
concerning the respondent's response to the January 23, 1987 request, which
complaint was docketed as #FIC 87-59.
4. In
settlement of the complaint in #FIC 87-59 the respondent agreed to provide the
complainant newspaper with access to the requested documents. Pursuant to such agreement one of the
respondent newspaper's reporters, Kim Hirsh, reviews correspondence at the
respondent's office every 10 days to 2 weeks.
5. In
October, 1987, while reviewing a packet of information prepared for members of
the New Haven board of education, Ms. Hirsh came across certain letters that
had not been made available to her when reviewing the respondent's
correspondence.
Docket #FIC 87-317 Page
Two
6. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on October 30, 1987 the complainants
alleged that in abrogation of the agreement reached in settlement of #FIC
87-59, the respondent had withheld from Ms. Hirsh certain pieces of
correspondence. The complainants made
specific reference to a series of letters to and from the Connecticut Civil
Liberties Union Foundation ("CCLU Foundation") and the New Haven
Department of Health.
7. At
hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it
failed to state the date of the alleged denial of access to records, which
motion was denied.
8. It is
found that at least two documents were not produced by the respondent for
inspection by Ms. Hirsh, one, an October 13, 1987 letter to the respondent from
Shelley Geballe, a staff attorney for the CCLU Foundation and the other, an
October 21, 1987 letter to Ms. Geballe from the respondent.
9. It is
found that the complaint was filed within 30 days of the alleged denial of
access to the October 13, 1987 and October 21, 1987 letters and was, therefore,
filed in a timely manner within the meaning of §1-21i(b), G.S.
10. At hearing
the complainants stated that the letters from the New Haven department of
health, referred to in their complaint, related to smoking in school by
teachers. No evidence was presented
concerning either the dates of the letters or the date of the alleged denial of
access. Such letters, therefore, will
not be considered in this report.
11. The
respondent did not claim that either of the letters referred to at paragraph 8,
above, was exempt from disclosure.
Rather, the respondent claims that the October 21, 1987 response to Ms.
Geballe was not available for Ms. Hirsh's review because it was inadvertently
omitted from his correspondence file by a member of his staff. The respondent did not account for the
unavailability of the October 13, 1987 letter from Ms. Geballe.
12. The
respondent stated, however, that where a record contained information which he
felt was not subject to mandatory disclosure he withheld the record in its
entirety, rather than releasing the document with deletions.
13. It is
found that the exclusion from the respondent's correspondence file of the
letters referred to at paragraph 8, above, amounted to a denial of the
complainants' request to inspect such correspondence, in violation of §§1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-317 Page
Three
14. It is
noted that the respondent's policy of denying access to records, portions of
which may be exempt from disclosure, denies the complainants access to the
non-exempt portions of such records, in violation of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
15. Because
the Commission lacks suffient evidence upon which to base a finding that any
records were so denied during the 30 days prior to the filing of the
complainants' complaint, the Commission declines to issue an order concerning
such policy.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of
§§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. concerning prompt access to public 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