FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Danny P. Greenlaw and Rapid Appraisal,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-304
West Hartford Director of Assessments,
Respondent May 12, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 26, 1993, 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 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 filed with this Commission on October 1, 1992, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act up to and continuing on September 24, 1992, by failing to permit the complainants to utilize their portable copier at the respondent's offices to photocopy public records.
3. It is found that on September 24, 1992, the respondent refused permission to the complainants to utilize a portable electric copier to make copies of public records rather than to secure the copies directly through the respondent.
4. It is found that the respondent provides copies of public records upon request at a charge of $.50 per page pursuant to 1-15(a), G.S.
5. It is also found that at all times operative, the respondent was willing to provide copies of public records to the complainants as described in paragraph 4, above.
6. Accordingly, the sole issue under consideration is whether the respondent's failure to allow the complainants to use their own portable copier constitutes a violation of the FOI Act under the facts of this case.
Docket #FIC 92-304 Page 2
7. The complainants claim that their portable copier is no larger than a briefcase and can be plugged into the nearby electric socket for utilization in the respondent's public area.
8. It is found that the electric socket referred to in paragraph 7, above, is fully occupied by an operative computer terminal for public use to obtain various public information.
9. At the hearing into this matter, the respondent also stated that in theory, he would not object to the utilization of a small battery-operated copier, nor to the use of a variety of other technology not currently provided by his office for public use including polariod cameras.
10. It is found that the quality of copies provided by the respondent is generally of at least average or above average quality. The respondent re-copies any document that for any reason may not have been reproduced clearly.
11. It is found that the respondent's copier was neither broken nor otherwise unavailable during the period of time in question under the facts of this case.
12. It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent did not violate the provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.
13. At the hearing into this matter, the complainants asserted that the respondent's actions as described in paragraph 3, above, constituted a violation of 1-19(a), G.S.
14. The Commission finds nothing in 1-19(a), G.S., to support the assertion described in paragraph 13, above.
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.
2. Although portable copier use is not mandated under the facts of a case such as this wherein copier technology is available at the agency's office, this Commission nevertheless encourages the cooperation of public agencies in allowing for the use of such technology whenever possible. The Commission further notes that in these times of rapidly advancing technology, any measures an agency can employ to provide for access to emerging technologies will improve the services those agencies are meant to provide to the public.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 12, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-304 Page 3
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:
Danny P. Greenlaw & Rapid Appraisal
P.O. Box 27
Torrington, CT 06790-0027
West Hartford, Director of Assessments
c/o Marjorie Wilder, Esq.
West Hartford Corporation Counsel
50 South Main Street
West Hartford, CT 06107
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission