|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Robert
Kryspin, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-386 |
|
Associate
Dean, State of Connecticut, University |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
January
12, 2000 |
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 21, 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 July 26, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent Associate Dean provide him with a copy of the following records (hereinafter “requested records”):
a. the complainant’s personal file from September 1992 through July 1999;
b. all information both academic and nonacademic pertaining to the complainant, including but not limited to (1) the correspondence from the mentor faculty to you or the APC (2) minutes of the third and fourth year APC meetings and minutes of the SEAC meetings (3) grades of all dental classes with the passing grade and the class average included (4) copies of the original encounter forms for all faculty rated work in prosthodontics (there was a numerical code placed in the academic credit portion of these forms) (5) cumulative data from the department of restorative dentistry (breakdown of procedures with detailed process and product assessment/ raw data) and (6) the complainant’s evaluation by Dr. Spangberg for the case conference of the fourth year endodontics course.
3. It is found that by letter dated July 30, 1999, the respondents acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request and informed the complainant that the respondent Associate Dean who authorizes such requests was away until August 3, therefore, they were unable to provide the requested records within five working days as he had requested, however, they would comply as appropriate as soon as the respondent Associate Dean returned.
4. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant filed this appeal with the Commission on August 20, 1999, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him a copy of the requested records.
5. With respect to the requested records as described in paragraph 2, above, it is found that the respondents maintain a student file and other records which are responsive to the complainant’s request. It is concluded that such file and records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
6. It is also found that the respondents provided the complainant with some of the requested records, however, certain minutes, were inadvertently not provided to him. The respondents indicated at the hearing on this matter that they would follow up and provide the complainant with such minutes. The records described herein that were provided to the complainant by the respondents were provided without charge.
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
Except 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 a 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. [Emphasis added.]
8. It is found that the respondents’ provision of access to the requested records, described in paragraph 6 above, was not prompt within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
9. It is also found that the respondents failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the minutes, described in paragraph 6 above, and therefore, violated §1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the
basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith the respondents shall provide the complainant with a copy of the minutes described in paragraph 6 of the findings, above, if they have not already done so.
2. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement of §1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 12, 2000.
_________________________
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:
Robert Kryspin
153 Proprietors Crossing
New Canaan, CT 06840
Associate Dean, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine, Office of Dental Academic Affairs; and State of Connecticut,
University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine, Office of Dental Academic Affairs
c/o Atty. William N. Kleinman
Assistant Attorney General
UCONN Health Center, Room LM043
263 Farmington Avenue
Farmington, CT 06030-3803
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-386FD/mrb/01/19/00