FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Robert Fromer, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC2000-126 |
|
|
David M. Goebel, Chief
Operating Officer, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 12, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 11,
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. By letter dated March 13, 2000, and filed on March 14, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act, by “denying” his request for certain records, by virtue of the letter described in paragraph 6, below. The complainant requested that the Commission levy the maximum civil penalty against the respondent.
3. It is found that, since December 1999, the complainant and the respondent exchanged a series of letters and e-mails related to the complainant’s original broad request for “access to all information contained in records and files… [and] a copy of all records in all computer files of all employees and officers” of the New London Development Corporation [hereinafter “NLDC”], a public agency subject to the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act.
4. It is found that, in compliance with the complainant’s request for “access to all information contained in records and files” the respondent spent considerable time preparing paper records for the complainant’s review, informed the complainant that such records would be available for inspection on January 11, 2000, and that a fee of 50 cents per page would be assessed for any copies the complainant wished. It is found that such records were available on January 11, 2000, but that the complainant did not appear until March 21, 2000, at which time he took copies totaling $3.50, but refused to pay for such copies.
5. It is found that, as a result of the correspondence described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, the complainant narrowed his request with respect to the requested computer records. Specifically, it is found that, by e-mail dated March 1, 2000, the complainant requested copies of print screens displaying the file names of all NLDC computer records [hereinafter “print screens”]. The complainant contended that the cost of providing such copies should be “nil”, estimating that the time to produce such copies would be approximately one minute.
6. It is found that, by letter dated March 6, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that he would not begin work on the request described in paragraph 5, until the complainant provided the respondent with payment, as described in a January 31, 2000, letter. It is further found that, by such letter dated January 31, 2000, the respondent estimated that the cost of complying with a request identical to that described in paragraph 5, above, was approximately $1800, and that such estimate was based on the respondent’s belief that it would be necessary to open electronic folders and redact information prior to printing copies of multiple screens.
7. It is found that, by letter dated March 9, 2000, the complainant suggested to the respondent that performing the requested copying functions would take approximately one minute and that any copy charge would be minimal; by such letter, the complainant requested a fee waiver pursuant to §1-212(b), G.S., contending that compliance with the request would benefit the general welfare.
8. It is found that, by letter dated March 14, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that he had provided the complainant with his best estimate of costs and that no work would be performed until payment was received.
9. It is concluded that the requested print screens are computer
stored public records within the meaning of §1-211(a),
G.S.
10. It is found that, contrary to the respondent’s belief, it is not necessary to open folders and redact information, as suggested by the respondent and described in paragraph 6, above, in order to comply with the request described in paragraph 5, above. However, it is also found that the respondent’s error in such regard was due to a mistaken understanding of the request and the means necessary to comply with it, rather than an attempt on his part to inflate the estimate. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent testified that, should the actual cost of complying with the request be less than the estimated cost, he would provide a refund to the complainant.
11. Section 1-211(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part:
"[a]ny public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the [FOI] Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made. Except as otherwise provided by state statute, the cost for providing a copy of such data shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212."
12. Section 1-212, G. S., provides in relevant part:
(a) [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….