FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Lorraine Wilmot and Jim Coll,

 

 

Complainant

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-507

H. Wayne Carver, II, Chief Medical
Examiner, State of Connecticut, Office
of the Chief Medical Examiner,

 

 

Respondents

April 26, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 18, 2000, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

 

2.      It is found that on or about March 31, 1999, complainant Wilmot made a request for, and received from the respondent, copies of the minutes of the Commission on Medicolegal Investigations’ (hereinafter “COMLI”) January 29, 1999 and March 26, 1999, meetings and a copy of the audiotape recording of the COMLI’s March 26, 1999 meeting for which she was charged $4.50. 

 

3.      By letter dated May 19, 1999, complainant Wilmot requested from the respondent copies of the audiotape recordings and the minutes of the COMLI’s meetings on May 21, 1999, September 24, 1999, and November 19, 1999.  Complainant Wilmot also requested that the respondent send her copies of the audiotape recordings and minutes of any other COMLI meetings for 1999, whether scheduled or unscheduled.

 

4.      By letter dated May 24, 1999, the respondent responded to Mrs. Wilmot’s May 19, 1999, request informing her that her letter was accepted as a request for copies of the audiotape recordings and minutes of the May 21, 1999 meeting of the COMLI’s and that because the agency did not have the equipment to duplicate audiotapes, an outside service had to be obtained and that Mrs. Wilmot would be charged for the service.

 

5.      By letter dated June 1, 1999, the respondent provided Mrs. Wilmot with a copy of the minutes of the COMLI’s May 21, 1999, meeting, and informed her that they were unable to provide a copy of the audiotape recording of that meeting because there had been a problem with the settings on the recorder during the meeting and the meeting was not recorded.

 

6.      By letter dated July 19, 1999, Mrs. Wilmot made a request for a copy of the audiotape recording and minutes of all future COMLI meetings that are held in 1999, whether scheduled or unscheduled.

 

7.      By letter dated August 6, 1999, the respondent replied to Mrs. Wilmot’s request by informing her that a request for each meeting must be issued separately because blanket requests could not be accepted; and that her July 19, 1999 letter would be treated as a request for a copy of the minutes and audiotape recording of the COMLI’s September 24, 1999, meeting.

 

8.      It is found that on a date subsequent to September 24, 1999, but prior to October 25, 1999, the respondent provided Mrs. Wilmot with a bill in the amount of $40.99 for a copy of the minutes and audiotape recording of COMLI’s September 24, 1999 meeting. 

 

9.      By letter dated October 25, 1999 and filed on October 29, 1999, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

a.       overcharging Mrs. Wilmot for a copy of the audiotape recording of COMLI’s September 24, 1999, meeting;

 

b.      failing to inform the complainants of the retention schedule of the audiotape recordings of the COMLI’s meetings; and

 

c.       falsely justifying their use of a company that charged $39.99 for duplicating services instead of the company that only charged $4.50 for the same service. 

 

The complainants also requested the imposition of civil penalties.

 

10.  Section 1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept 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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

 

     11.  Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . .”

 

12.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].

 

13.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent argued that with respect to the complainant’s request for copies of the minutes and audiotape recording of the COMLI’s September 24, 1999, meeting, Mrs. Wilmot made a request for records that, at the time of their request, did not exist and that the respondent is not obligated to comply with such a request. 

 

14.  Notwithstanding the foregoing argument, the respondent did make a copy of the audiotape recording and the minutes of the September 24, 1999, and after consultation with counsel, offered to provide the complainants with the records free of charge prior to and at the hearing on this matter which records were never accepted by the complainants.  Furthermore, the respondent purchased duplicating equipment in order to provide copies of the audiotape recordings of COMLI meetings expeditiously and at a much lower cost to the public.

 

15.  It is found that at the time of Mrs. Wilmot’s requests, as described in paragraphs 3 and 6, the September 24, 1999 meeting had not taken place and therefore neither minutes nor an audiotape recording existed. 

 

16.  It is found that Mrs. Wilmot did not make any other requests for a copy of the minutes or the audio tape recording of COMLI’s September 24, 1999, meeting.

 

17.  It is found that the respondent was not required to comply with a request for records that did not exist at the time of the request.  

 

18.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act with respect to the complainants’ allegation described in paragraph 9a, above.

 

19.  With respect to the complainants’ allegation found in paragraph 9b, above, it is found that the complainant, Mr. Coll, via the telephone, made a request for information in the form of a question and did not request a record.

 

20.  It is found that the Freedom of Information Act does not require a public agency to answer questions and further, it is found that there is no evidence in the record that the respondent maintains a record responsive to the Mr. Coll’s question. 

 

21.  Therefore it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], with respect to Mr.Coll’s question described in paragraph 9b, above.

 

22.  With respect to the complainants’ allegation found in paragraph 9c, above, it is found that the complainants have not alleged a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

 

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

April 26, 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:

 

 

Lorraine Wilmot and Jim Coll

51 Candle Hill Road

New Fairfield, CT  06812

 

 

H. Wayne Carver, II, Chief Medical Examiner, State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Medical Examiner

c/o Atty. Patrick B. Kwanashie

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

Hartford, CT  06141-0120

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-507FD/mrb/05/01/00