|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
George L. Bozzi, Jr., |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket #FIC
1999-391 |
|
Superintendent of Schools, Wallingford |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
March
8, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 3, 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 July 21, 1999 the complainant
requested that the Chairman of the Wallingford Board of Education (“board”)
and the respondent superintendent provide him with two copies of the board’s
videotape cassette recording of the first 16 minutes of the board’s May 17,
1999 regular meeting (hereinafter “requested record” or “requested
videotape”). The complainant
provided the respondents with two blank cassettes.
3.
It is found that by letter dated July 22, 1999, the respondent
superintendent informed the complainant that only one copy of the requested
record would be provided to the complainant and “if you require duplicate
copies of this tape, it is your responsibility to undertake such copying from
the copy we are providing you.”
4.
Having failed to receive two copies of the requested videotape, the
complainant by letter dated August 11, 1999 again requested that the Chairman
of the board and the respondent superintendent provide him with another copy
of the requested videotape.
5.
It is found that by letter dated August 18, 1999, the respondent
superintendent denied the August 11, 1999 request “on the grounds that the
school system has met its obligations to you under the Freedom of Information
Act.”
6.
By letter dated August 21, 1999 and filed on September 9, 1999, the
complainant, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated
the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by twice
denying him a copy of the requested videotape.
7. With respect to the July 21, 1999 request, described in paragraph 2 above, it is found that the respondent superintendent denied the complainant a second copy of the videotape on July 22, 1999.
8.
For purposes of this appeal, it is concluded that the complainant’s
appeal, having been postmarked August 21, 1999, was timely filed on such date,
within the meaning of §1-206(b)(1), G.S. [formerly §1-21i(b)(1), G.S.],
which provision provides in relevant part:
Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records … may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial….For purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked, if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such appeal is taken.
9. Sec. 1-210(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(a),
G.S.], provides:
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.
10.
It is found that the respondents twice denied the complainant a second
copy of the videotape at issue.
11. There is nothing in the FOI Act that either requires or prohibits a public agency from providing two copies of a public record to a requester as opposed to one copy.
12.
It is also found that in light of the facts presented in this case,
where there was no evidence to suggest that providing the complainant with two
copies of the requested videotape proved a hardship or any particular
difficulty on the part of the respondents, or that the complainant’s request
was frivolous or harassing, that the respondents’ position that they would
only provide one copy was overly hyper-technical.
13.
While no violation of the letter of the law is concluded, the
Commission finds that the spirit of the FOI law would have been best served
had the respondents provided the complainant with a second copy of the
requested videotape instead of continuing the wasteful and non-productive
dialogue that they continue to engage in.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1.
Forthwith, the respondent superintendent shall provide the complainant
with a copy of the requested videotape.
2.
It is clear that the parties in this matter are engaged in a dialogue
not productive to the efficient use of this Commission’s process.
For the parties to have come before this Commission and litigate the
issue in this matter suggests, at a minimum, a disregard for the less than
efficient use of both the state’s and the town of Wallingford’s scarce
resources. The Commission strongly suggests to both sides that they act in a
more conciliatory and less litigious manner and avail themselves of the
Commission’s ombudsing procedure.
3.
A copy of the Final Decision in this matter shall be sent to the Mayor,
Town Council and Board of Selectmen in the town of Wallingford.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of
March 8, 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:
George L. Bozzi, Jr.
17 Bayberry
Drive
Wallingford,
CT 06492
Superintendent of Schools, Wallingford
Public Schools; and Wallingford Public Schools
c/o Atty. Richard D. O’Connor
Siegel, O’Connor, Schiff &
Zangari, PC
150 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT
06103
PER ORDER OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION FINAL DECISION ALSO SENT TO:
Mayor
Town of Wallingford
Municipal Building
45 South Main Street
Wallingford, CT
06492
Town Council
Town of Wallingford
Municipal Building
45 South Main Street
Wallingford, CT
06492
Board of Selectmen
Town of Wallingford
Municipal Building
45 South Main Street
Wallingford, CT
06492
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-391FD/mrb/03/09/00