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 1997-108
Dr. David Larson, Superintendent
of Schools, Middletown Public Schools,
Respondent 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 #FIC1997-107, 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 June 20, 1996, the
complainant requested that the respondent provide him with a copy of any and
all bills submitted by Dr. Sherrill Werblood (Werblood) to the Middletown
School District (District) as well as an explanation for the reason for her
employment, the date she was hired, and the date that the District released her
as a consultant.
3. By letter dated June 21, 1996, the
respondent supplied the complainant with information, including copies of
Werblood’s bills dated:
2/10/96 (stamped received 2/20/96);
3/10/96 (stamped received 3/13/96);
3/30/96 (stamped received 4/03/96); and
5/09/96 (stamped received 5/21/96).
4. By letter dated August 26, 1996, the
complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of all
Werblood bills from May 1, 1996, to August 26, 1996. Additionally, the complainant asked several questions of the
respondent.
5. By letter dated August 27, 1996, the
respondent informed the complainant that the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act
does not require agencies to answer questions and provided him with invoices
from Werblood’s office dated:
5/09/96 (stamped received 5/21/96);
7/04/96 (stamped received 7/08/96); and
8/14/96 (stamped received 8/27/96).
6. It is found that the balance on the 5/09/96
bill was $2,280.00. It is further found
that the 7/04/96 bill states that the previous balance was $1,440.00.
7. 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
Werblood from January, 1996, to February 26, 1997.
8. By letter dated March 3, 1997, the
respondent transmitted the requested bills, and stated that he was not in
custody of a Werblood bill dated June, 1996.
The Werblood invoices were dated:
2/10/96 (stamped received 2/20/96);
3/10/96 (stamped received 3/13/96);
3/30/96 (stamped received 4/03/96);
5/09/96 (stamped received 5/21/96);
7/04/96 (stamped received 7/08/96);
8/14/96 (stamped received 8/27/96); and
9/10/96 (stamped received an unintelligible
date in September, 1996).
9. It is found that the 9/10/96 bill included
a notation that previous statements had been sent on “2/4/96, 3/10/96, 3/30/96,
3/30/96, 5/9/96, 6/1/96, 7/4/96, and 8/14/96.”
It is further found that the respondent also sent to the complainant a
copy of a March 3, 1997, letter from Werblood, wherein she stated that the
reason for the duplication of the 3/30/96 date and inclusion of the 6/1/96 date
in the notation on the 9/10/96 bill was a fault of her computer billing
system.
10. By letter dated March 11, 1997, the
complainant requested that the respondent supply him with: a copy of Werblood’s
6/1/96 bill, or a statement by Werblood covering her employment from 4/15/96 to
6/3/96; copies of Werblood’s canceled checks paid by the District; a copy of
any letter, fax, or correspondence sent to Werblood regarding an explanation of
her billing statements, dated in March, 1997; and a copy of Werblood’s entire
account dated March 3, 1997.
11. By letter dated March 17, 1997, the
respondent provided the complainant with a March 13, 1997, letter from Werblood
regarding the June, 1996, invoice, wherein she stated that the District never
received a copy of such bill. Attached
to such letter was a bill, dated 3/13/97, for May, 1996, services in the amount
of $1080.00; such bill indicated that the current balance was $1,440.00. It is found that such balance equates to the
amount stated as the previous balance on the 07/04/96 bill.
12. By the letter dated March 17, 1997, the
respondent also provided a comprehensive 3/03/97 Werblood invoice which
included dates of services rendered and payments made from 1/10/96 to 10/02/96. The invoice indicates that a payment of
$1080.00 was made on 9/10/96.
Additionally, the respondent informed the complainant that he was not in
custody of canceled checks; and that Werblood’s explanation of her billing
statements was made by telephone.
13. By letter dated March 26, 1997, and filed on
March 31, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the
respondent violated the FOI Act by failing to provide him with a copy of the
6/1/96 bill in the respondent’s March 3, 1997, response. The complainant requested that a civil
penalty be imposed.
14. 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.
15. The respondent contends that he was not in
custody of a 6/1/96 bill or any other bill for services rendered by Werblood in
the month of May, 1996, until such bill was received by the District on March
13, 1997, at which time he provided a copy of same to the complainant;
therefore, respondent contends he did not violate the FOI Act.
16. The complainant contends that the notation
on the 9/10/96 invoice indicating that a bill was sent to the District on
6/1/96, as well as apparent payment and invoice inconsistencies related to the
Werblood account are evidence that the respondent was in custody of a 6/1/96
bill prior to March 13, 1997.
17. It is found that the notation on the 9/10/96 bill is not reliable
since that same notation contained two other errors, namely, a citation to a
2/04/96 bill which was actually dated 2/10/96, and two citations to the 3/30/96
bill. Accordingly, the fact that the
9/10/96 notation indicates that a previous bill was sent to the District on
6/1/96 does not prove the complainant’s allegations in paragraph 16,
above.
18. It is further found that the $1080.00
payment made on 9/10/96 indicates that the respondent or his employee may have
had knowledge of a charge for May, 1996, services rendered, since that amount
equates to the amount ultimately charged for such services and to no other
charge evidenced on the Werblood invoices.
19. It is further found, however, that such
payment does not prove that the respondent was in custody of a June, 1996, bill
at the time of complainant’s February 26, 1997 request, at the time of the
respondent’s March 3, 1997, response, or at anytime prior to such dates.
20. It is further found that, while there may be
discrepancies in the Werblood billings and/or questions regarding the payment
procedures of the District, there has been no showing that a June, 1996, bill
ever existed.
21. Consequently, with respect to the
allegations contained in paragraph 13, above, it is concluded that the
respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to provide the complainant
with such record on March 3, 1997.
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 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
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-108/FD/tcg/01201997