|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Gus
Montanaro and |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-140 |
|
Advisory
Council for |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September
22, 1999 |
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on July 14, 1999, at which time the complainants 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 §1-200(a), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(a), G.S.]
2.
It
is found that on February 23, 1999, during the respondent’s regular meeting,
the complainant made an oral request for the minutes of any public hearing or
meeting of the respondent during which the public was invited to speak
regarding a take-over of public access television in Area II by a third
party.
3.
It
is found that the complainant put his request, as described in paragraph 2,
above, in writing and attempted to submit that request to the respondent’s
chairman after he made his oral request.
4.
It
is found that the respondent’s chairman refused to accept the complainant’s
written request and responded to his oral request by informing the complainant
that he knew of no such meeting and that the complainant should check the files
maintained by the State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control
(hereinafter “DPUC”).
5.
By
letter dated March 18, 1999, and filed on March 22, 1999, the complainant
appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent’s chairman violated
the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to:
a.
accept
his written request;
b.
to
put his refusal to accept his written request in writing;
c.
and
to provide the requested records.
6. Section
1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in
relevant part that:
[e]xcept 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 1-212.
7. Section
1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in
relevant part that:
[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive,
promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.
8.
To
the extent records that are responsive to the complainants’ request described
in paragraphs 2a and 2b, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
9.
It
is found that the respondent did not have a meeting fitting the description in
paragraph 2, above, but that members of the respondent did attend a meeting of
the DPUC during which members of the public were permitted to speak on the
issue of a third party take-over of public access television in Area II.
10. It is therefore found that
the respondent does not maintain any records responsive to the complainant’s
request and so informed him on the date of his request, as described in
paragraph 4, above.
11. It is concluded that the
respondent did not violate the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. or §1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S. and §1-15(a), G.S., respectively]
with respect to the complainants’ allegation described in paragraph 5c, above.
12. It is found that nothing in
the FOI Act requires a public agency to accept a written request or to put a
refusal to accept a written request in writing and it is therefore concluded
that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with regard to the allegations,
as described in paragraph 5a and b, 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 hereby dismissed.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
September
22, 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:
Gus
Montanaro and
Friends
of Public Access
PO
Box 9284
Bridgeport,
CT 06601
Advisory Council for
Cable Television, Area II
c/o
Howard Jacobson
666
Sturges Highway
Westport,
CT 06880
__________________________
Melanie
R. Balfour
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-140FD/mrb/09221999