FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
Michael
A. Zizka and |
|
||
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-391 |
|
Manager
of State Design, |
|
||
|
Respondents |
May 23, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 18, 2000, at which time the complainants 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 May
26, 2000, the complainant Zizka, on behalf of his client, the Town of
Coventry, made a request to the respondent department to inspect and receive
copies of “all documents that analyze, review, comment on, or otherwise
refer to or deal with any safety improvements that were, are, or may be
anticipated as a result of changes made by, or under the direction or control
of, the Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) on or along that
portion of U.S. Route 6 within the towns of Bolton, Coventry, Andover, and
Columbia, Connecticut.”
3.
By letter dated June
2, 2000, the respondents responded to the complainant Zizka’s May 26, 2000
request and informed him that the records responsive to his request date back
over 15 years and that compliance with his request would unduly burden the
resources of the respondent department. The
respondents suggested that the complainant Zizka narrow the scope of his
request or make arrangements to inspect the records and select specific
records for copying.
4.
By letter dated June
7, 2000 to the respondent manager, the complainant Zizka attempted to narrow
the scope of the request by requesting “safety analyses.”
The complainant Zizka explained that responsive records should include
“any projections, assumptions, data or conclusions with respect to the
manner, extent and degree by which safety of the road for drivers was expected
or determined to be enhanced by the road improvements or alterations.”
5.
By letter dated June
22, 2000 to the complainant Zizka, the respondent manager again informed him
that it would be unduly burdensome for the respondent department to search for
records responsive to his request because the respondent department does not
maintain a single file containing the requested records and because there may
be numerous records that would be responsive to the complainant Zizka’s
broad definition of “safety analyses” generated over the last 15 years.
6.
By letter dated July
20, 2000 and filed on July 24, 2000, the complainants appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by failing to comply with their request.
7.
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. Any agency 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.
8.
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
. . . .”
9.
It is found that the
requested records, to the extent they exist, are public records within the
meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10.
At the hearing on
this matter, the respondents claimed that compliance with the complainants’
request requires research, which they are not obligated to do under the FOI
Act. The respondents also claimed
that the complainants’ request is overly broad and does not specifically
identify the records sought, requiring the respondents to analyze the records
and to exercise discretion as to whether the records fall within the
complainants’ request.
11.
The complainants
contend that the requested records are readily identifiable from the request
and that the request does not require the respondents to exercise any
discretion in order to comply with it. The
complainants contend that the request simply requires the respondents to
conduct a search for the records.
12.
It is found that the
respondent department has undertaken at least twenty projects to improve Route
6 within the past ten years and that all of the improvements to Route 6 are
primarily undertaken to either increase safety or to add capacity to the
highway.
13.
It is found that the
respondents maintain records pertaining to improvements to Route 6 in several
different divisions and units of the respondent department according to the
nature and requirements of the project.
14.
It is found that each
division or unit maintains their files differently according to business
needs.
15.
It is found that none
of the divisions or units of respondent department maintain a separate file
entitled “safety analyses” because the department believes it has no
business purpose for maintaining such a file.
16.
It is found that in
order to comply with the complainants’ request, the respondents would have
to identify records that contain specific requested information that is not
readily identifiable from the reasonably organized records of the respondent
and as such constitutes research.
17.
It is also found that
on or about August 17, 2000, the complainant Zizka inspected a file pertaining
to a certain project undertaken by the respondent department to improve Route
6 and found a document entitled “Route 6 Safety Improvements Columbia
Project Description” which contains the following language:
This
project has been initiated as part of a larger effort to address safety along
the entire U.S. Route 6 corridor. Widening
of shoulders will better control ingress and egress from residences and
businesses in a safer and more controlled manner.
The intersection improvements will provide exclusive left turn lanes as
well as improved intersection sight distance thereby reducing the number of
rear end collisions.
18.
It is found that the
record described in paragraph 17, above, is considered by the complainants to
be responsive to the complainant Zizka’s June 7, 2000 request.
19.
It is found that in
order to locate and retrieve records similar to that described in paragraph
17, above, the respondents would have to make subjective determinations to
identify such records, which determinations would also constitute research.
20.
It is found that the
respondents are not required to conduct research in order to comply with the
complainants’ request.
21.
Based on the
foregoing, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure
provisions of §§1-210(a) or 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the
complainants with records responsive to their request.
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.
2. Although nothing in the FOI Act requires the respondents to conduct research on behalf of the complainants, nothing in that Act prohibits them from doing so either. Nor does the FOI Act prohibit the complainants from inspecting all of the respondents’ non-exempt public records and having copies made of those of interest to them. In light of the above and the fact that a political subdivision of the state is interested in access to information important to its residents, the Commission urges the parties to work cooperatively to effectuate the legitimate interest of the complainants with the least amount of disruption to the respondents.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 23, 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:
Michael A. Zizka and Town
of Coventry
c/o Kari L. Olson, Esq.
Murtha Cullina LLP
CityPlace I - 185 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3469
Manager
of State Design,
State
of Connecticut, Department
of
Transportation, Bureau of
Engineering
and Highway
Operations;
and State of
Connecticut,
Department of
Transportation
c/o
Charles H. Walsh, Esq.
Assistant
Attorney General
55
Elm Street
Hartford,
CT 06106
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-391/FD/paj/05/24/2001