|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Raul A.
Rodriguez, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-583 |
|
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 #FIC1999-582, 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 16, 1999, the complainant, a member of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission (hereinafter “LPRAC”), requested from the respondent copies of the minutes of:
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.
The complainant requested that the respondent provide copies of the subject minutes both in print form and on a “3.5 IBM formatted diskette.”
3. By letter dated December 22, 1999, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request and provided the complainant with copies of the amended minutes of the LPRAC special meeting of April 7, 1999 and the regular meetings of September 15 and October 20, 1999. The respondent advised the complainant that the November 17, 1999 meeting minutes had been tabled at the December 15, 1999 meeting of the LPRAC and therefore there were no amended minutes for such meeting.
4. By letter dated December 27, 1999 and filed December 28, 1999 the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had denied his request for a copy of the subject minutes on diskette.
5. It is found that the respondent became aware of the complaint in this matter on receipt of a copy of the complainant’s December 27, 1999 letter to the Commission and at that point realized that the response in his December 22, 1999 letter to the complainant did not satisfy the complainant’s request for a copy of the subject minutes on diskette.
6. It is also found that immediately thereafter, the respondent informed the complainant that he would immediately take steps to provide the complainant with a copy of the subject minutes on diskette.
7. It is further found that on December 30, 1999 the respondent sent the complainant by mail a copy of the requested diskette containing the subject minutes, which was received by the complainant 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. Furthermore, §1-211(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19a(a), G.S.) provides:
“Any public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made.”
11. It is found that the requested minutes constitute public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.).
12. It is also found that the respondent, through inadvertence, initially did not realize that the complainant had additionally requested a computer diskette copy of the subject minutes, although the request was clear and unambiguous, and consequently, it is found that the respondent did not comply promptly with the complainant’s diskette request, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.), §1-212, G.S. (formerly §1-15(a), G.S.) and §1-211(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19a(a), G.S.).
13. In light of the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent technically violated §1-210(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.), §1-212, G.S. (formerly §1-15(a), G.S.) and §1-211(a), G.S. (formerly §1-19a(a), G.S.).
14. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that the copies of minutes provided to him in connection with this matter are inaccurate or are not complete when compared against the copies of the tape recordings of the LPRAC meetings provided in connection with Docket #FIC1999-582. 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 Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission. The Commission urges that in the future the members and staff of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission 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
FIC1999-583/FD/mes/02101000