FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by
|
FINAL DECISION
|
| Marie
Galat, |
|
|
|
Complainant
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket #FIC 1999-616
|
|
Personnel Director, Board of
Education, Bristol Public Schools, |
|
|
|
Respondents
|
April 26, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 2,
2000, at which time the
complainant 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 by
letter dated December 10, 1999, the complainant posed a series of questions to
the respondent and requested the following records from the respondent, all of
which refer to statements allegedly made by the respondent at an August 13,
1999, Connecticut Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities hearing:
a. “all complete and true documents, records, and/or
statements that substantiate [the respondent’s] claims that [the
complainant] was physically and emotionally harmful to ‘kids’ that
[the complainant] had been in contact with.”
b. “all complete and true documents, records and/or statements
that substantiate the bizarre behavior that was also recorded about [the
complainant] at the above hearing.”
c. “all complete and true documents, records and/or statements
that substantiate [the respondent’s] correspondence that [the
complainant] requested that [the complainant’s] records on file be
removed or destroyed.”
3.
By letter dated December 28, 1999, and filed with the Commission on
December 30, 1999, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the
Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to reply to her
letter of December 10, 1999.
4. Section 1-210(a),
G.S. [formerly §1-19(a),
G.S.], provides in relevant part:
[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 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.
5. Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a),
G.S.], provides in relevant part:
[a]ny person applying in writing
shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public
record. The fee for any copy
provided in accordance with the [FOI] Act…shall not exceed fifty cents per
page….
6. With respect to the questions
posed in the complainant’s letter of December 10, 1999, it is concluded that
the respondent is not obligated by the FOI Act to respond to such questions.
7.
With respect to the records requested by the complainant as described
in paragraphs 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c, above, it is found that such requests require
that the respondent exercise discretion in determining what records are being
sought, and that the requested records could not be readily identified by the
respondent. It is concluded that
the FOI Act does not require that a public agency exercise such discretion in
responding to freedom of information requests.
William E. Wildin v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al.,
No. AC 18603 (Feb. 15, 2000).
8.
Nevertheless, it is found that, by letter dated December 28, 1999, the
respondent informed the complainant that there were no records in existence
responsive to the request described in paragraph 2.a, above, since the
respondent informed the complainant that he disputed her characterization of
his remarks at the hearing described in paragraph 2, above.
It is found, however, that by such letter the respondent offered to
provide the complainant with copies of records outside the scope of the
request described in paragraph 2.a, above, which records reflected teacher and
principal concerns related to the safety of children in classrooms where the
complainant was present. It is
further found that, by such letter, the respondent offered to provide the
complainant with copies of records responsive to the requests described in
paragraphs 2.b and 2.c, above. It
is found that the offers described herein were contingent upon the complainant
paying a copying fee of fifty cents per page for eleven pages of records.
9.
Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent did not
violate the provisions of §1-210(a),
G.S. [formerly §1-19(a),
G.S.], as alleged in the complaint.
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:
Marie Galat
Personnel Director, Board of Education, Bristol Public
Schools
c/o Atty. Christine L. Chinni
Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-616FD/mrb/05/01/00