FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Bradshaw Smith, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-492 |
|
|
Maria
M. Hauser, Deputy Commissioner, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 28, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 6, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents
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
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 respondents provide him with copies of the
resumes/applications of the successful candidates for the two positions of
part-time and full-time librarian. It
is further found that the respondents received such letter on August 17, 2000.
3. It is found that, by letter dated August 24, 2000, the
respondents informed the complainant that the positions described in paragraph
2, above, had been reclassified, thanked him for his interest in employment
with the respondents, and encouraged him to apply for positions in the future.
It is further found that, by such letter, the respondents did not
provide the complainant with copies of the requested records.
4. By letter dated August 7, 2000 [sic], and filed on September
5, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the
respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his
request for copies of the requested records.
The complainant requested the imposition of the maximum civil penalty
in this matter.
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…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….”
7. It is found that,
shortly after the complainant filed the complaint in this matter, the
respondents provided him with a response to his request.
At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that he was
satisfied with such response and that his complaint is limited to the issue of
timeliness.
8. It is found that, upon receipt of the request described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent department’s personnel officer misread such request and did not realize it was a request for records. It is further found that, upon reviewing such request, after the filing of the complaint in this matter, the respondents realized their mistake and immediately provided the complainant with the requested records.
9. It is concluded that the respondents’ provision of records
more than three weeks after the request described in paragraph 2, above, was
not prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., and that
they therefore violated such provisions.
It is also concluded that the misreading of the request by the
respondents, as described in paragraph 8, above, was unintentional.
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
provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
2. The complainant is advised that the Commission is experiencing a dramatic
increase in the number of complaints filed, and seeks to resolve uncontested matters
without the need to conduct time-consuming and costly administrative hearings, through
the Commission’s ombudsman program.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 28, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Bradshaw Smith
23 Ludlow Road
Windsor, CT 06095
Maria M. Hauser, Deputy Commissioner
State of Connecticut
Department of Correction and
State of Connecticut
Department of Correction
c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-492/FD/paj/03/07/2001