FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by
|
FINAL DECISION
|
|
A-Tel, Inc., |
|
|
|
Complainant
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket
#FIC 2000-189
|
|
|
|
|
|
Respondents
|
October 25, 2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on May 25, 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.
2.
It is found that, by letter dated March 27, 2000, the complainant
requested that the respondent provide it with copies of records related to the
locations of SNET or SNET affiliated pay telephones on city property and or
right of ways [hereinafter “location record”]; copies of any contracts
between the city of Bridgeport and SNET or SNET affiliates [hereinafter “the
contracts”]; and copies of all applications submitted by SNET or SNET
affiliates for placement of pay telephones on city property or right of ways,
whether approved or denied [hereinafter “application records”].
3.
Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant
appealed to the Commission by letter dated April 17, 2000 and filed on April
19, 2000, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by denying the requested copies and by failing to keep on file or maintain
public records.
4. Section 1-210(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 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…Each such agency shall keep and maintain all
public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business
in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of
business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in
the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public
agency is located….
5.
With respect to the location record, it is found that the respondent
first denied the complainant a copy of such record because it consisted of an
inaccurate map. It is further
found that the respondent thereafter provided the location record to the
complainant by letter dated May 23, 2000.
6.
It is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provision
of §1-210(a),
G.S., by its provision of the location record to the complainant two months
after the request described in paragraph 2, above.
7.
With respect to the contracts, the respondent contends that such
records are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-210(b)(5),
G.S.
8. Section 1-210(b)(5), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure:
[t]rade secrets, which for purposes of the [FOI]
Act, are defined as unpatented, secret, commercially valuable plans,
appliances, formulas, or processes, which are used for the making, preparing,
compounding, treating or processing of articles or materials which are trade
commodities obtained from a person and which are recognized by law as
confidential, and commercial or financial information given in confidence, not
required by statute
9. It is found that the contracts are neither trade
secrets nor commercial or financial information given in confidence, within
the meaning of §1-210(b)(5),
G.S., and therefore, are not exempt from mandatory disclosure.
10. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a),
G.S., when it denied the complainant’s request for copies of the contracts.
11. With respect to the application records, it is found that,
sometime subsequent to its receipt of the complainant’s request, and prior
to the filing of the complaint in this matter, the respondent notified the
complainant that the application records had previously been returned to SNET.
It is further found that the application records had been returned to
SNET for revision because such records were inaccurate or incomplete, and that
such transfer had occurred prior to the respondent’s receipt of the request
described in paragraph 2, above. It
is further found that the respondent did not keep on file or maintain such
records at the time of the request described in paragraph 2, above, or at the
time of the filing of the complaint described in paragraph 4, above.
Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a),
G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with copies of such records.
12. The complainant alleges that the respondent violated §1-210(a),
G.S., by returning the application records to SNET as described in paragraph
11, above.
13. However, in accordance with the provisions of §§11-8,
11-8a and 11-8c, G.S., the issue of retention and disposal of public records
rests with the State Public Records Administrator. Accordingly, the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the
complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 11, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the
basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1.
Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with copies of
the contracts, described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.
2.
Henceforth, the respondent shall comply with the promptness provision
of §1-210(a),
G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 2000.
_________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
A-Tel, Inc.
c/o Donal C. Collimore, Esq.
Collimore and Collimore
1150 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06430-6040
c/o Melanie J. Howlett, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney
City of Bridgeport
999 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604-4328
__________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-189FD/mes10262000