FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Carrie W. Gordon and Success
Programs,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88‑252
Fairfield Superintendent of
Schools,
Respondent October
26, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 17, 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. By letter
dated May 26, 1988 the complainants made a request of the respondent for a list
of parents of tenth and eleventh grade students in the respondent's school
system.
3. The
respondent failed to respond to the complainants' request.
4. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on June 27, 1988 the complainants
appealed the respondent's failure to provide the requested records.
5. At
hearing, the complainants clarified their request by stating that they were
seeking the names and addresses of parents of tenth and eleventh grade
students.
6. The
respondent claims that the requested information is exempt from disclosure
pursuant to §1‑19(b)(11), G.S. and that, therefore, the complainants'
appeal was taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely to harass
the respondent, within the meaning of §1‑21i(b), G.S.
7. By motion
filed with the Commission on July 29, 1988 the respondent made a request for
the imposition of a civil penalty against the complainants, pursuant to §1‑21i(b),
G.S.
Docket #FIC 88‑252 Page
Two
8. It is
found that the complainants' appeal was not taken frivolously, without
reasonable grounds and solely to harass the respondent within the meaning of §1‑21i(b),
G.S. The respondent's request for a
civil penalty, therefore, is denied.
9. It is
found that the respondent does not maintain a list of the names and addresses
of parents of tenth and eleventh grade students, as was requested by the
complainants.
10. It is,
therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate §1‑15 or §1‑19(a),
G.S.
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 special meeting of October 26, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission