FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Christopher C. Noble, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-531 |
|
|
Director,
Elections Division, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 28, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 20, 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
August 30, 2000 to the respondents, the complainant made a request for “a
current copy of the compact disk containing the Central Voter Registration
list for the towns and cities in the State of Connecticut” (hereinafter “the
list”).
3.
By letter dated
September 13, 2000 to the complainant, the respondent director informed the
complainant that, to date, only 138 towns and cities utilize the system and
that the cost for the list on compact disk is $300.00.
4.
By letter dated
September 24, 2000 and filed on September 26, 2000, the complainant appealed
to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by charging more than is allowed by statute for a
copy of records stored on computer.
The complainant also alleged that the excessive charges precluded him
from obtaining the list, thereby functionally denying him access to such list
on compact disk.
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 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.
Any rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the
provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights
granted by this subsection shall be void.
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 the requested record is public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8.
Section 1-211(a), G.S.,
provides that:
[a]ny
public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system
shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of
Information 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 a 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.
9.
Section 1-212(b), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that:
[t]he
fee for any copy provided in accordance with subsection (a) of section 1-211
shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency.
In determining such costs for a copy, other than for a printout which
exists at the time that the agency responds to the request for such copy, an
agency may include . . .(4) [t]he computer time charges incurred by the agency
in providing the requested computer-stored public record where another agency
or contractor provides the agency with computer storage and retrieval
services.
10.
It is found that the
list is the product of the electronic voter list project undertaken by the
Office of the Secretary of the State in which, at the time of the hearing on
this matter, 138 towns and cities voluntarily participate.
The registrars of voters in the participating towns and cities agree to
store their voter registration information electronically on a computer
terminal connected to a mainframe that incorporates the voter registration
information from all participating towns and cities into one centralized list.
11.
It is found that at
any time, any of the 138 registrars can access their information to update
their existing voter registration information or to add new voter registration
information. Consequently, the
centralized list changes and it changes at the same time any changes are made
by a registrar.
12.
It is found that the
list is stored on a mainframe housed and maintained by the State Department of
Information and Technology (“DOIT”) pursuant to the contracted
vendor/vendee relationship that exists between the respondents and DOIT.
Pursuant to said relationship, DOIT provides certain computer services
to the respondents and bills the respondents for such services.
13.
It is found that the
process for producing a copy of the voter registration list on a computer disk
from the mainframe is as follows:
a.
a requester is
informed that the copying is usually done on the weekend because the process
takes several hours and can only be done when changes aren’t being made to
the list by registrars of voters;
b.
the respondent
submits a request to DOIT to run the batch program;
c.
once the batch
program is run, the information is compressed and sent to a computer terminal
at the Office of the Secretary of the State where the information is
decompressed and transferred onto the compact disk(s) which is provided to the
requester.
14.
It is found that
after all the information has been transferred onto compact disks, the
information is generally deleted from the computer terminal at the Office of
the Secretary of the State because the database uses a great deal of computer
memory.
15.
It is found that the
cost to the Office of the Secretary of the State to obtain the most current
copy of the centralized list is $1,702.29, which is the computer time charged
by DOIT for providing the respondents with computer storage and retrieval
services and that cost is incurred each time the Office of the Secretary of
the State requests a batch to be run.
16.
The complainant
contends that the charge to the public for a copy of the list is excessive and
serves as a denial of access to the list. The complainant also contends that
the cost should not exceed $75.00. The complainant further contends that he would have accepted
a copy of the list on a disk generated from a previous request and that the
respondents should have kept a copy of such disk to offer to him and other
members of the public at a lower cost.
17.
It is found that the
complainant asked for a current copy of the centralized list and that the
respondents reasonably determined that in order to comply with the complainant’s
request, a new batch had to be run.
18.
It is found that
pursuant to §1-212(b)(4), G.S., the respondents may charge the complainant
the full amount of $1,702.29.
19.
It is found, however,
that the respondents only charge each requester $300.00 for a copy of the
centralized list on compact disk.
20.
It is found that the
lowered charge is an attempt to make the list accessible and still allow the
respondents to recover some of the cost to provide the list on compact disk.
21.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondents did not violate the cost provisions of
§1-212(b), G.S., nor did the respondents violate the disclosure provisions of
§1-210(a), G.S.
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.
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:
Christopher C. Noble
Noble & Associates, LLC
11 Pine Street
Plainville, CT 06062
Director, Elections Division
State of Connecticut, Office of
the Secretary of the State; and
State of Connecticut, Office of the
Secretary of the State
c/o Michael T. Kozik, Esq.
Office of the Secretary of the State
30 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-531/FD/paj/03/07/2001