The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 9, 1999 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(1), G.S.

        2. By letter of complaint dated and filed on January 4, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by charging him fees for computer stored records inconsistent with the requirements of § 1-15(b), G.S. Specifically, the complainant takes issue with the $75.00 fee requested by the respondent for a floppy diskette of one license holder roster up to a maximum of $350.00 for five or more rosters. The complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty of $1000 upon the respondent.

        3. It is found that sometime during late October to early November, 1998, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with a list of chiropractors on floppy diskette.

        4. It is found that the respondent informed the complainant of the fee for providing the requested list on diskette, which fee the complainant believed was excessive and in violation of § 1-15(b), G.S. The complainant complained to the respondent about the fee, and eventually the respondent provided the complainant with the requested list on diskette, and waived the fee.

        5. After obtaining the requested list, without charge, the complainant then filed this complaint challenging the fee initially requested by the respondent.

        6. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:

Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-19 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.

        7. It is found that because the respondent provided the complainant with the requested list the complainant has not been denied any right from which he may appeal to the Commission, within the meaning of § 1-21i(b)(1), G.S.

        8. The Commission therefore, lacks jurisdiction to hear the merits of the complainant’s allegation, as described in paragraph 2, 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 dismissed.

        Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 14, 1999.

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

Leo F. Smith
1060 Mapleton Avenue
Suffield, CT 06078
Stephen Harriman,
Commissioner,
State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Health
c/o Atty. Peter L. Brown
Assistant Attorney General
PO Box 120
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06141-0120

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1999-002FD/mrb04161999