FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Daniel J. Filer,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1997-107
Dr. David Larson, Superintendent
of Schools, Middletown Public Schools
Respondents January
14, 1998
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 9, 1997, at
which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain
facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was
consolidated with Docket #FIC1997-108, Daniel J. Filer against Dr. David
Larson, Superintendent of Schools, Middletown Public Schools.
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(1),
G.S. (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(a),
G.S.).
2. By letter dated February 26, 1997, the
complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of any and
all bills relating to the employment of Dr. Sherrill Werblood (Werblood) from
January 1996 to the date of the request, as well as copies of any and all legal
bills from the law firm of Shipman and Goodwin (Shipman) from January 1996 to
the date of the request. The
complainant indicated in his letter that the respondent could refrain from
redacting references to his child.
3. By letter dated March 3, 1997, the
respondent transmitted the requested bills, stated that he did not have a
Werblood bill for June 1, 1996, and that he was not required to create
documents in response to a request.
4. It is found that the bills transmitted to
the complainant contained redactions of students’ names, including the name of
the complainant’s child.
5. By letter dated March 19, 1997, and filed
on March 25, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the
respondent violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by redacting the name
of his child. The complainant requested
that a civil penalty be imposed upon the respondent.
6. It is found that the requested records are
public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(5)
(prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(d))
and 1-19(a), G.S.
7. Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part
states:
Except as otherwise provided by any
federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any
public agency…shall be public records and every person shall have the right
to…receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section
1-15….
8. Section 1-19(b)(11), G.S. , in relevant
part provides that:
[n]othing in the Freedom of
Information Act…shall be construed to require disclosure of [the] names or
addresses of students enrolled in any public school or college without the
consent of each student whose name or address is to be disclosed who is
eighteen years of age or older and a parent or guardian of each such student
who is younger than eighteen years of age…
9.
The
Commission takes administrative note of its Final Decision in Docket
#FIC1996-535; Daniel J. Filer v. David Larson, Superintendent of Schools,
Middletown Public Schools, concerning the same issue, wherein the
Commission concluded that the respondent had violated the FOI Act by redacting
the name of the complainant’s child, despite receiving parental consent to
refrain from such redaction. The Final
Decision in Docket #FIC1996-535 was adopted by the Commission on June 11, 1997,
and was sent to the parties by certified mail on June 23, 1997.
10. On July 14, 1997, the Commission mailed
notification of the complaint in the instant matter to the respondent, and on
July 24, 1997, the respondent sent the complainant another copy of the
requested bills, without the complainant’s child’s name redacted.
11. The respondent contends that his actions
were reasonable because he initially supplied the requested records to the
complainant with redactions, based upon advice of counsel, and, upon learning
of the Commission’s order in Docket #FIC1996-535, promptly forwarded the
requested records to the complainant, without redacting the name of
complainant’s child.
12. It is found that in this case, as was the
case in Docket #FIC1996-535, the child who is the subject of the redactions at
issue is under eighteen years of age; the respondent knows the complainant is
the parent of such child; and that the complainant consented to the unredacted
disclosure to him of the requested records pertaining to his child.
13. It is therefore found that §1-19(b)(11),
G.S., does not exempt the information pertaining to the complainant’s child.
14. Consequently, it is concluded that the
respondent violated §§1-15(a)
and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with copies
of the requested records without redacting the information pertaining to the
complainant’s child.
15. The commission declines to impose a civil
penalty under the facts of this case.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly
comply with the provisions of §§1-15(a)
and 19(a), G.S.
2. Although the Commission declined to do so
in this case, the Commission cautions the respondent that similar future
violations may result in the imposition of a civil penalty.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 14, 1998.
_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting 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:
Daniel J. Filer
27 Magnolia Avenue
Middletown, CT 06457
Dr. David Larson, Superintendent
of Schools, Middletown Public Schools
c/o Anne H. Littlefield
Shipman and Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103-2819
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-107/FD/tcg/01201997