FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Ruth Kuhlig,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1997-070

Superintendent of Schools, North

Stonington Public Schools; and Board of

Education, Town of North Stonington,

Respondents January 28, 1998

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 5, 1997, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S. (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(a), G.S.).

2. By letter dated January 30, 1997, the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with copies of the job descriptions and exact yearly assignments of two employees of the North Stonington Public Schools.

3. It is found that, upon receipt of the complainant’s request, the respondent superintendent determined that teacher work assignments were not maintained at his office. It is further found that the respondent superintendent thereupon promptly contacted the administrator of the school building where such records were maintained in order to comply with the complainant’s request. It is further found that the administrator located only 2 pages of assignment information related to the 1996-1997 school year at that time.

4. It is found that, by letter dated February 7, 1997, the respondent superintendent promptly provided the complainant with the requested job descriptions, as well as the records of assignments which had been forwarded to him by the administrator described in paragraph 3, above. The respondent superintendent informed the complainant that he did not have the exact yearly assignment records spanning the employees’ respective terms of employment.

5. By letter dated February 26, 1997 and filed on February 28, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her a copy of the detailed work assignments of the specified employees.

6. At the hearing, the complainant limited the scope of her complaint to the assignment records of one employee, who had been employed by the North Stonington School System for approximately 30 years.

7. 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.).

8. It is found that, subsequent to the complainant’s request, the respondents created records relative to the subject employee’s assignments as a response to a request from the State Teachers’ Retirement Board.

9. It is found that, in response to a subsequent request from the complainant’s spouse, the respondents provided master teaching schedules, which detail the assignments of all teachers within the subject school, for school years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Such records were provided on October 1, 1997. It is further found that such master schedules were obtained by the respondents from an individual acting in the capacity of the administrator described in paragraph 3, above.

10. The complainant contends that the respondents’ creation of records in response to a state agency request, as well as their subsequent location of at least one document responsive to her request which had not been provided to her, indicate that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to promptly provide her with existing responsive records. The complainant further contends that the respondents should be in possession of work assignments of the subject employee from earlier years.

11. Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part states:

[e]xcept 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 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… Each such agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place…

12. It is found that the FOI Act does not require public agencies to create records or to answer questions in response to a request.

13. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of §1-19(a), G.S., by failing to create records in response to the complainant’s request, notwithstanding the fact that the respondents later opted to create similar records for a state agency.

14. It is further concluded that, under the circumstances, the respondents did not violate the provisions of §1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with all existing assignment records at the time of her request.

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 28, 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:

Ruth Kuhlig

c/o Clemens Kuhlig

25 Armbuster Road

Terryville, CT 06786

Ruth Kuhlig

c/o Karen Howard

17 Putter Road

North Stonington, CT 06359

Superintendent of Schools, North

Stonington Public Schools; and Board of

Education, Town of North Stonington

c/o Robert J. Murphy

Sullivan, Schoen, Campane, & Connon, LLC

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105-4286

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1997-070/FD/tcg/01281998