FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Bradshaw Smith, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-493 |
|
|
Eileen R. Rausch,
Personnel Manager, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
November 8, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 3, 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. It is found that by letter
dated August 14, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent personnel
manager provide him with a copy of the successful candidate’s application
and/or resume for the position of Law Library Assistant, ID#00-1000-097
(hereinafter “requested record”).
3. It is also found that by
letter dated August 28, 2000 the complainant sent a letter to offices of the
Deputy Attorney General, making reference to his request to the respondent
personnel manager, described in paragraph 2, above, and asking for “your
prompt attention to this matter”.
4. Having failed to receive the
requested record, the complainant, by letter dated and filed on September 5,
2000, appealed to the commission alleging that the respondents violated the
Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the requested
record. The complainant requested
that the commission impose civil penalties against the respondents.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Except 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., further provides, in relevant part: “[A]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”
7. It is found that the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the requested record on or about September 19, 2000.
8. Consequently, the only issue before the Commission is whether the respondents’ provision of access, described in paragraph 7, above, was prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
9. The Director of Human Resources indicated at the hearing in this matter that upon receipt of the complainant’s request the respondent personnel manager directed such request to his attention. Thereafter, he personally took charge of handling the request. Specifically, he consulted with counsel to determine whether the requested record was disclosable under the FOI Act. He further indicated that there was a period of delay between his receipt of the request and his consultation with counsel, during which no follow up was made with the complainant.
10. It is concluded that under the facts and circumstances of this case the respondents’ provision of access to the requested record, approximately one month after the receipt of the complainant’s request, was not prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., and consequently the respondents violated such provisions.
11. The Commission does not find that civil penalties are appropriate in this case.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness provision of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 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:
Bradshaw Smith
23 Ludlow Road
Windsor, CT 06095
Robert D. Coffey, Director
State of Connecticut
Judicial Branch
Human Resource Management
75 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission