|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Raul A.
Rodriguez, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-582 |
|
Executive Director, State of
Connecticut, Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
February
9, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 11, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC1999-583, Raul A. Rodriguez v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission.
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(1), G.S. (formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.).
2. By letter dated December 10, 1999, the complainant, a member of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission (hereinafter “LPRAC”), requested from the respondent copies of the tape recordings of the:
a) special meeting of the LPRAC held on April 7, 1999; and
b) regular meetings of the LPRAC held on September 15, October 20 and November 17, 1999.
3. By letter dated December 14, 1999, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request and advised that the requested records were in micro cassette format and that the commission did not have a machine to make copies of such records. The respondent further advised the complainant however, that the requested tape recordings were available for his inspection during the commission’s regular business hours.
4. By letter dated December 16, 1999 and filed December 17, 1999 the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had denied access to copies of the requested tape recordings.
5. It is found that the respondent became aware of the complainant’s letter described in paragraph 4, above, sometime on December 16, 1999 and at that point realized that the response in his December 14, 1999 letter to the complainant was unacceptable to the complainant.
6. It is also found that on December 16, 1999, the respondent again wrote to the complainant stating that the respondent would immediately look into options for copying the requested micro cassettes.
7. It is further found that subsequently, after several failed attempts to have the subject tapes copied, the respondent was able to secure copies through the state Office of Legislative Management on December 30, 1999 and forwarded such copies to the complainant by mail on that date. The complainant received such copies of the tapes on December 31, 1999.
8. Section 1-210(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.), reads in material part:
“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 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.”
9. Section 1-212(a), G.S. (formerly §1-15(a), G.S.), in turn, reads in material part:
“Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”
10. It is found that the requested tape recordings constitute public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.).
11. It is also found that the respondent, through inadvertence, initially misconstrued the nature of the complainant’s December 10, 1999 request in this matter, and consequently, did not fully respond to that request promptly, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.) and §1-212, G.S. (formerly §1-15(a), G.S.).
12. In light of the foregoing, it is concluded that, although the respondent acted in good faith, the respondent technically violated §1-210(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.) and §1-212, G.S. (formerly §1-15(a), G.S.).
13. It is further found, however, that when the respondent recognized his error, he acted promptly to comply fully with the complainant’s request.
14. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that copies of minutes provided to him in connection with Docket #FIC1999-583 are inaccurate or are not complete when compared against the copies of the tape recordings of the LPRAC meetings provided in connection with this matter. The Commission however, lacks jurisdiction to rule on whether the official minutes of the LPRAC precisely correspond to the tape recordings of the LPRAC meetings; and the Commission therefore will not make any findings or conclusions with respect thereto.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. In view of the inadvertent nature of the violation in this case and the respondent’s actions in response thereto, no further order by the Commission is warranted.
2. The Commission notes, however, that this appeal resulted in an egregious waste of the scarce resources of both this Commission and the LPRAC. The Commission urges that in the future the members and staff of the LPRAC resolve similar internal disputes within their own agency if at all possible.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
February 9, 2000.
________________________
Ann B. Gimmartino
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:
Raul A. Rodriguez
175 Beverly Road
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Executive Director, State of
Connecticut, Latino and Puerto
Rican Affairs Commission
18-20 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106
__________________________
Ann B. Gimmartino
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-582/FD/mes/02101000