FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Leo F. Ostar,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2000-622

Interim Superintendent,
Board of Education,
Regional District 15,

 

 

Respondent

April 11, 2001

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 22, 2001, 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.      It is found that, by letter dated October 26, 2000, the complainant asked that the respondent “make available present student utilization of space at Long Meadow, the two middle schools and the high school through daily period-by-period occupancy of all areas during a full program cycle.  Please include all student-utilized spaces with general and specialized class rooms as the base.  In addition, detail data for resource rooms and support facilities when these are integral to the educational experiences of students as well as hallways, closets, music rooms where students may have to wear ear plugs and stages used for educational purposes.  Each area through the cycle would display unique identification-number of students, grade level, etc.” 

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated October 28, 2000, the respondent provided the complainant with an October 4, 2000 memorandum written by a school consultant regarding the capacity of Region 15 Schools, including an addendum showing the capacity of Region 15’s schools by three different methods, the capacity changes due to grade configuration, and the school capacities after the planned additions and renovations, and a second addendum consisting of a chart of room utilization for the year 2000-2001. 

 

 

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated November 6, 2000, the complainant informed the respondent that he had failed to provide the complainant with the number of students in all student occupied spaces throughout the full educational cycle.   

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated November 8, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that the only other notes or calculations regarding capacity which he maintained were those provided in an attached September 24, 2000, letter that he wrote to a school consultant.  It is also found that, by such letter, the respondent informed the complainant that he had ordered the preparation of a room utilization report for the high school that would include class size.  Further, the respondent informed the complainant that he did not maintain such reports for schools other than the high school.  

 

6.  By letter dated November 16, 2000, and filed with the Commission on November 17, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with access to all of the records requested, as described in paragraph 2, above.  As relief, the complainant asked that the Commission impose a civil penalty of $1.00 against the respondent; that the respondent make available the requested records in a format designed by the complainant on a public television channel, on the website of Region 15, and at a public presentation before the board of education; and that a proposed building project referendum be postponed for two weeks.

 

7.  By letter dated November 24, 2000, the complainant amended his complaint, informing the Commission that had received the report described in paragraph 5, above, but that he had not received similar reports for the elementary school and the middle schools.   

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated November 29, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that he been provided access to all existing requested records. 

 

9.  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….”

 

            10.  It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with access to all records which he maintains or keeps on file that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above.  It is also found that the FOI Act does not require a public agency to create a document in order to comply with an individual’s request for records, nor does the FOI Act require a public agency to answer the questions of individuals seeking information.  The FOI Act simply requires the disclosure of all existing records. 

 

 

 

 

 

            11.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint. 

 

 

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 April 11, 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:

 

Leo F. Ostar

46 Central Road

Middlebury, CT 06762

 

Interim Superintendent of Schools

Board of Education, Regional District 15

c/o Brian Clemow, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One American Row

Hartford, CT 06119

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2000-622/FD/paj/04/16/2001