FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Ethan Book, Jr., |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-076 |
|
|
State
of Connecticut, Connecticut |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 14, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on April 26, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, 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.
2.
It is found that, by
letter dated January 17, 2000, the complainant asked the respondent to provide
copies of all file materials pertaining to his complaint inquiry related to a
telephone conversation of February 25, 1986 between Betty A. McCree, an
investigator for the respondent, and the complainant [hereinafter “complaint
materials”], as well as a copy of the authorization to hire David L. Kent
[hereinafter “the authorization”].
3. It
is found that, by letter dated February 1, 2000, the respondent acknowledged
the request described in paragraph 2, above, and informed the complainant that
the requested records were being forwarded to the respondent’s legal
division for review, and that all non-exempt records would be forwarded to the
complainant.
4. Having
failed to receive the requested copies, by letter
dated February 21, 2000, and filed with the Commission on February 22, 2000,
the complainant alleged that the respondent thereby violated the Freedom of
Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act.
5. Section 1-210(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 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.
6. Section 1-212(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. The fee for any copy provided in accordance with the [FOI] Act…shall not exceed twenty-five cents per page.…
7. It is found that, to the
extent that they exist, the requested records are public records within the
meaning of §1-210(a),
G.S.
8. It is found that, in 1990, the State Public Records Administrator approved a disposal schedule of one year after disposition for the complaint materials.
9. It is found that, in an effort to verify that the complaint materials were no longer kept or maintained by the respondent, the managing director of the respondent ordered that both the central office and the Bridgeport office of the respondent be searched for such records. It is further found that, during such time, the managing director had been diagnosed with a serious illness, and was occupied with treatments and with preparation to be out of the office for several weeks for recovery from surgery.
10. It is found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain the complaint materials, nor does it keep on file or maintain any similar records related to other complaints filed prior to 1992.
11. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to provide the complainant with copies of the complaint materials, as alleged in the complaint.
12. It is found that, after completion of the searches described in paragraph 9, above, by letter dated March 3, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that it did not maintain or keep on file the requested fourteen year old complaint materials, and provided the complainant with a copy of the authorization, free of charge. It is also found that the social security number of the subject of the authorization was redacted at his request.
13. It is found that,
notwithstanding the unfortunate circumstances described in paragraph 9, above,
the respondent’s compliance with the complainant’s request for the
authorization was not prompt within the meaning of §1-210(a),
G.S.
On the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order by the Commission is recommended.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
June 14, 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:
Ethan Book, Jr.
PO Box 1385
Fairfield, CT 06432
State
of Connecticut, Connecticut Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
c/o Atty. Philip A. Murphy, Jr.
Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
21 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour