FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL DECISION
Ethan Book, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 94-266
State of Connecticut
Department of Transportation,
Respondent March 22, 1995
The above-captioned matter was expedited and heard as
a contested case on November 17, 1994, at which time the complainant 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 of complaint filed August 8, 1994, the complainant appealed to the
Commission, alleging that he received no response from the respondent to his
July 6, 1994 request for records.
3. It
is found that the complainant by letter dated July 6, 1994 requested the
following information from the respondent:
a. "Names
of companies and owners, business addresses and telephone numbers for all
individuals or companies that have applied for an intra-state livery permit
since January 1, 1992.
b. "Names
of individuals and companies, description of areas covered, and number of
approved vehicles for those entities that have received application approvals
since January 1, 1992.
c. "Names
of companies and owners, business address and telephone number of all
individuals or companies who have been granted permission since January 1,
1992, to increase the fleet number of vehicles and dates that each took effect.
d. "Copies
of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, notes recording the content of
Docket #FIC 94-266 Page
2
telephone
conversations, facsimile transmissions, and any and all other form of
communication which mentions my name, my company name, or my application
directly or indirectly.
e. "A
list of all persons who were written to or spoken to regarding me, my company,
or my application since August of 1992 and copies of all respective notes and
communic[a]tions to and from such persons.
This listing would include owners, managers, or other personnel of
limousine companies operating in the state."
4. It
is found that the complainant sought the above information in connection with
the respondent's denial of his application for a livery license on April 2,
1993.
5. It
is found that the complainant received no information or response from the
respondent to his July 7, 1994 request until September, 1994.
6. It
is also found that the complainant received no records in response to his
request until November, 1994.
7. It
is found that the respondent ultimately provided the complainant with copies of
records responsive to the requests described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above.
8. It
is also found that the respondent provided the complainant with copies of
records that contain names and dates of approvals that are responsive to the
request described in paragraph 2.c, above, and that the respondent has offered
the complainant access to the files from which addresses and phone numbers can
be obtained by research.
9. Section
1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided by any
federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any
public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any
rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the
right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours
or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of
section 1-15.
10. Section
1-15(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
"Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon
request, a plain or certified copy of any public record."
Docket #FIC 94-266 Page
3
11. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a) by
failing to promptly provide copies of the records that were ultimately
delivered to the complainant.
12. The
respondent maintains that it has not actually denied the complainant access to
any records.
13. Section
1-21i(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Any denial of the right to inspect or
copy records provided for under section 1-19 shall be made to the person
requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control
of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request
.... Failure to comply with a request
to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of
business days shall be deemed to be a denial.
14. It
is therefore concluded that the respondent's failure to respond in any way to
the complainant within four business days of his request constituted a denial
of access to public records by operation of 1-21i(a), G.S.
15. It
is found that the respondent has offered the complainant access to any
non-exempt files from which any information sought in paragraphs 2.c, 2.d and
2.e, above, which has not already been provided to the complainant can be
obtained by research.
16. It
is also found that any such additional information sought in paragraphs 2.c,
2.d, and 2.e, above, can only be obtained by research.
17. It
is concluded that the respondent is not obligated to conduct research on behalf
of the complainant.
18. It
is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of
Information Act by offering the complainant access to non-exempt files rather
than conducting research for him.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. With
respect to the portion of the complaint concerning the timeliness of the
respondent's response, henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the
requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 94-266 Page
4
2. With
respect to the portion of the complaint concerning records for which research
is required, the complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 22, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the
Commission
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:
ETHAN BOOK, JR.
P.O. Box 1385
Fairfield, CT 06430
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
c/o Charles H. Walsh, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street, 3rd Floor
Annex
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the
Commission