FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Robert Kryspin,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2000-105

Associate Dean, State of Connecticut,
University of Connecticut, School of
Dental Medicine, Office of Dental
Academic Affairs; and State of Connecticut,
University of Connecticut, School of Dental
Medicine, Office of Dental Academic Affairs,

 

 

Respondents

June 14, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 6, 2000, 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.

 

2.  By letter dated March 2, 2000, and filed on March 6, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the Commission’s final decision and order in contested case Docket #FIC 1999-386, Robert Kryspin against Associate Dean, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine, Office of Dental Academic Affairs; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine, Office of Dental Academic Affairs (hereinafter “FIC 1999-386”), wherein the Commission ordered the respondents to:

“[f]orthwith …provide the complainant with a copy of the minutes described in paragraph 6 of the findings, above, if they have not already done so.”

 

            3.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in FIC 1999-386.  Paragraph 6 of the findings in FIC 1999-386, provides in relevant part that “[i]t is also found that the respondents provided the complainant with some of the requested records, however, certain minutes, were inadvertently not provided to him.  The respondents indicated at the hearing on this matter that they would follow up and provide the complainant with such minutes….”

 

4.  It is found that, at the time of the hearing in FIC 1999-386, the respondents presented evidence that they might have inadvertently neglected to include “APC” minutes from the complainant’s third and fourth years at the respondent school, although it was their intention to so include such minutes with other records provided to the complainant by letter dated August 13, 1999. 

 

5.  It is found that, at the hearing in FIC 1999-386, the complainant contended that the minutes provided were incomplete, consisted of a summary of the minutes requested, and did not consist of the entire minutes for each meeting. 

 

6.  It is found that, at the hearing in the present matter, the complainant contended that the minutes provided did not contain information indicating members present, time, date and place of meetings. 

 

7.  It is found that the complaint in FIC 1999-386 was filed with the Commission on August 20, 1999, and alleged that the respondents did not comply with his request for records dated July 26, 1999.

 

8.   It is found that, with respect to the minutes at issue, the request letter described in paragraph 7, above, sought copies of  “…information…which pertains to me including…minutes of the third and fourth year APC meetings….”

 

9.  It is found that the Notice of Final Decision in FIC 1999-386 issued on January 20, 1999.  It is further found that the respondent provided the complainant with copies of all information pertaining to the complainant contained in the minutes of the third and fourth year APC meetings, including summaries of discussions and votes taken. 

 

10.  It is found that portions of the provided minutes evaluating students other than the complainant were omitted from the copies supplied to the complainant, as were portions indicating members present, and date, time and place of meetings.   However, it is further found that the letter of July 26, 1999, as described in paragraphs 7 and 8, above, did not include a request for such information. 

 

11.                            It is concluded that the complainant is bound in this and the underlying matter  by the complaint filed on August 20, 1999, relating to the July 26, 1999 request described in paragraphs 7 and 8, above.  It is therefore concluded that, notwithstanding the subsequent correspondence between the parties, and the contentions made by the complainant as described in paragraphs 5 and 6, above, the complainant cannot appeal to the Commission herein based upon a subsequent expanded request for additional portions of the minutes at issue. 

12.  It is concluded, therefore, that the records enclosed with the letter of February 17, 1999, supplied the complainant with all the information requested on July 26, 1999, as described in paragraphs 7 and 8, above.  It is further concluded that the respondents complied with the order in FIC 1999-386, and did not violate the Freedom of Information Act, 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.

 

2.  The Commission requests that the respondents provide the complainant with those portions of the minutes at issue which indicate the members present, and date, time and place of such meetings.  Although the respondents are not bound to do so, the Commission believes that such action might avoid another time-consuming and costly administrative hearing.  

 

 

 

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:

 

 

Robert Kryspin

89 South Whitney Street, Apt. AA-1

Hartford, CT  06106

 

 

Associate Dean, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine, Office of Dental Academic Affairs; and State of Connecticut,

University of Connecticut, School of Dental Medicine, Office of Dental Academic Affairs

c/o Atty. William N. Kleinman

Assistant Attorney General

UConn Health Center

263 Farmington Avenue

Farmington, CT  06030-3803

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC2000-105FD/mrb/06/20/00