FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Steven Edelman,

 

 

Complainants

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-319

Christopher Arciero, Sergeant, State
of Connecticut, Department of Public
Safety; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety,

 

 

Respondents

December 8, 1999

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 9, 1999 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 §1-200(1), G.S., (formerly (§1-18a(1), G.S.).

 

2.  It is found that by letter dated May 29, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent sergeant provide him with access to inspect:

 

all records, documents, laws, treatises, opinions, and similar instruments ascribing a specific legal classification to the type of proceeding or session that the State of Connecticut Building Codes and Standards Committee convenes under section 29-252(d) CGS and 29-262(d), CGS.  Legal classification means a classification identified in Article II U.S. Constitution.

 

3.  It is found that the respondent sergeant by letter dated June 4, 1999, responded to the complainant’s request and provided him with copies of certain records.

 

4.  It is found that by letter dated June 10, 1999, the complainant renewed his request to the respondent sergeant, indicating that the records provided and described in paragraph 3 above, were not responsive to his request.

 

5.  It is found that by letter dated June 16, 1999, the respondent sergeant informed the complainant that “we do not have any additional documents responsive to your request.”

 

6.  The complainant then, by letter dated July 9, 1999, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to inspect the requested records.  The complainant requested that civil penalties be imposed upon the respondents.

 

7.  It is found that the respondents have made a good faith effort to identify, locate and retrieve identifiable records that are responsive to the complainant’s request and the complainant has been given access to those records.  It is found that the respondents are unable to identify any additional records, and have invited the complainant to inspect the records of the state Building Codes and Standards Committee.

 

8.  Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

 

 

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

December 8, 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:

 

 

Steven Edelman

Frog Pond

Windham Center, CT  06280

 

Christopher Arciero, Sergeant, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety

c/o Atty. Robert B. Fiske III

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT  06105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1999-319/FD/mrb/ 1/10/2000