FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Executive
Director, State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for
Handicapped and Developmentally Disabled Persons,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-335
Commissioner,
State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles,
Respondent March 14, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on January 29, 1990, at which time the complainant appeared
and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint, but the
respondent failed to appear.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter of complaint dated August 22, 1989 and filed with the
Commission on August 24, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission,
alleging that he had received no response to his request for public records, as
described in paragraph 3, below.
3.
It is found that by letter dated August 10, 1989, the complainant
requested from the respondent copies of the following records of the Department
of Motor Vehicles ("DMV"):
a. any
DMV regulations, policies or bulletins utilized regarding the licensing of
people with disabilities;
b. any
DMV regulations, policies or bulletins utilized regarding medical probation of
licensees with disabilities;
c. any
regulations, policies or bulletins utilized by the DMV's Medical Advisory
Board;
d. any
minutes of any meetings convened by DMV's Medical Advisory Board from January
1, 1989 to August 10, 1989; and
Docket #FIC
89-335 Page 2
e. any
recommendations of the DMV's Medical Advisory Board made pursuant to
14-46c(1), (2), (4) or (5), G.S.
4.
It is concluded that all of the records described in paragraph 3, above,
are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
5.
It is found that the respondent by letter dated January 18, 1990,
provided copies of certain of the records requested by the complainant.
6.
It is found that the number of records supplied by the respondents was
not so voluminous as to require five months to provide.
7.
It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S., by failing to provide copies of public records promptly upon request.
8.
It is found that none of the records provided by the respondent is
responsive to those portions of the complainant's request described in
paragraphs 3.c or 3.e, above.
9.
It is also found that the respondent may have records in addition to
those already provided to the complainant which are responsive to those
portions of the complainant's request described in paragraphs 3.a, 3.b and 3.d,
above.
10.
At the hearing, the complainant requested that a civil penalty be
imposed against the respondent.
11.
The Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
The respondent shall forthwith provide at no cost to the complainant
copies of all records responsive to the complainant's request described in
paragraph 3 of the findings above, and, within two weeks of the issuance of the
Final Decision in this matter, provide the complainant with an affidavit
stating that the respondent has conducted a thorough search of his records, and
describing, by specific reference to the categories of records requested by the
respondent, the types of records requested by the complainant which do not
exist or which the respondent claims are exempt from disclosure.
Docket #FIC
89-335 Page 3
2.
Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the
requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a) regarding prompt provision of public
records.
Approved by
order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March
14, 1990.
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
89-335 Page 4
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST
RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF
THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO
THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, OFFICE OF PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY FOR HANDICAPPED AND
DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS
c/o Lawrence W.
Berliner, Esq.
60B Weston
Street
Hartford,
CT 06120
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
60 State Street
Wethersfield,
CT 06109
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission