FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Michael Selvaggi, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-626 |
|
|
Superintendent of Schools, Milford Public |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 13, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 18, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case caption has been corrected to reflect that the Director of Pupil Personnel, Milford Public Schools (hereinafter “director”), is a respondent in this matter. The director attended the hearing and provided testimony on issues relevant to 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 two letters dated October 18, 2000 the complainant requested that the respondent director provide him with access to:
a) the Milford School District’s American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) self evaluation report (“report”) for programs, services, policies, practices and transition plan;
b) notices posted or filed in relation to the report and to the American with Disabilities Act;
c) records which identify committee members or other individual participants assigned to produce the report and self-evaluation including those consulted or who commented; and
d) records which describe areas examined and any problems identified, and descriptions of any modifications made.
(hereinafter “requested records”).
3. It is found that by letter dated October 18, 2000, the
respondent director initially informed the complainant that Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act requests should be sent directly to the
Superintendent of Schools, however,
the director informed the complainant on October 23, 2000 (and again by letter
dated October 24, 2000), that the requested records were being compiled and
would be forwarded to him.
4. By letter dated November 16, 2000, and filed with the Commission on November 20, 2000, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by denying him access to the requested records.
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…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.” [Emphasis added.]
6. Section 1-212(a), G.S.,
further provides, that the fee for any copy provided by municipal public
agencies shall not exceed fifty-cents per page.
7. It is found that the records “maintained or kept on file” by the respondents that are in any way responsive to the complainant’s request were made available to the complainant on or about November 17, 2000. It is concluded that such records are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
8. The complainant claims that a) the respondents have not
provided him with all of the requested records; b) that the records made
available to him on or about November 17, 2000 were not made available in a
timely manner, and c) that the fee of fifty-cents per page requested by the
respondents for copies of records maybe in violation of the FOI Act.
9. With respect to the complainant’s claim as described in
paragraph 8a) above, it is found that following a review of records maintained
by the respondent director and other Milford Public School departments, all
existing records that were located have been made available to the
complainant. It is found that the
complainant believes that the Milford school district is obligated under the
ADA to develop other records. He
therefore, contends that the school district should have other
records. The respondents disagree with the complainant’s
position. It is concluded that
whether the respondents should have created other records is not an issue over
which this Commission has authority.
10.
It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate
§1-210(a), G.S., with respect to the complainant’s claim as described in
paragraph 8a) above.
11.
With respect to the complainant’s claim as described in paragraph 8b)
above, it is concluded that notwithstanding the fact that the records provided
to the complainant were maintained in different departments, the provision of
access on or about November 17, 2000, approximately one month after the
receipt of the complainant’s request (which asked for “immediate”
access) was not prompt within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
12.
It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the promptness
provision of §1-210(a), G.S., with respect to the complainant’s claim as
described in paragraph 8b) above.
13.
With respect to the complainant’s claim as described in paragraph 8c)
above, it is concluded that pursuant to §1-212(a)(2), G.S., the respondents
were authorized to charge the complainant fifty-cents per page for copies of
records.
14.
It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate
§1-212(a)(2), G.S., with respect to the complainant’s claim as described in
paragraph 8c) above.
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), G.S.
2. The complaint is dismissed with respect to the claims as described in paragraph 8a and 8c, of the findings, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 13, 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 Selvaggi
574 Milford Point Road
Milford, CT 06460
Superintendent of Schools,
Milford Public Schools,
and Director of Pupil Personnel,
Milford Public Schools
c/o Floyd J. Dugas, Esq.
Berchem, Moses and devlin
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-626/FD/paj/06/15/2001