FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Jay Fletcher, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-141 |
|
|
Nicholas E. Neeley,
Director of |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 11, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 4, 2001, 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. It is found that during the
latter part of January 2001, while reviewing a file at the respondent
department, the complainant came across a reference indicating “1/10 called
company [AT&T Broadband] and requested company to send customer [the
complainant] letter explaining company recording policy” (hereinafter “the
letter”).
3. It is found that on February
13, 2001 the complainant requested by e-mail that respondents Neeley and
Rickard provide him with the letter.
4. It is found that on February
16, 2001 respondent Rickard, after a search of the respondents’ records had
been conducted, e-mailed the complainant indicating that the respondents did
not have the letter but that a request had been made to AT&T Broadband for
the letter.
5.
By e-mail dated March 12, 2001 and filed on March 14, 2001, the
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated
the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide him with the letter.
He requested the imposition of civil penalties in this matter.
6. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides:
Except 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. [Emphasis added.]
7. It is found that the respondents do not “maintain” or “keep on file” the letter requested by the complainant. Specifically, the respondents do not have a letter from AT&T Broadband, addressed to the complainant, explaining ATT Broadband’s recording policy.
8. It is also found that the respondents never received a letter from AT&T Broadband, addressed to the complainant, explaining ATT Broadband’s recording policy.
9. The FOI Act does not require
that public agencies create records not already in existence, in order to
satisfy an FOI request for records.
10. It is therefore
concluded that the respondents did not
violate §1-210(a), G.S., by not providing the complainant with the requested
letter since such a letter did not exist.
11. It is found however, that the
respondents have a letter from AT&T Broadband, addressed to the respondent
department, that deals with company recording policy and mentions the
complainant’s name.
12. It is also found that by
letter dated March 9, 2001, the respondent sent the complainant a copy of the
letter described in paragraph 11, above, along with an explanation that “although
the enclosed letter is not addressed to you, it is the only one from AT&T
Broadband in the [respondent] Department’s possession that deals
specifically with your concerns with regard to AT&T’s recording of
customer calls.” At the hearing
in this matter, the complainant indicated that he had not received the March 9
letter and enclosure.
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. The respondents shall by certified mail provide the complainant with a copy of the March 9, 2001 letter and enclosure from AT&T Broadband, described more fully in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the findings, above, since the complainant has not received those letters.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 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:
Jay Fletcher
116 Colby Drive
East Hartford, CT 06108-1416
Nicholas E. Neeley, Director of
Advocacy and Regulatory Operations,
State of Connecticut, Department of
Public Utility Control; Louise Rickard,
State of Connecticut, Department of
Public Utility Control; and State of
Connecticut, Department of Public
Utility Control
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-141/FD/paj/07/16/2001