FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Jay V. Fletcher,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-534

Billy G. Taylor, Director of Public

Works, Town of East Hartford,

 

 

Respondent

 May 22, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 14, 2002, 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 November 5, 2001, the complainant requested that the public works department make available for his review “all of the complaint and repair records . . . for all Colby Drive since the surface was recapped around 1990/1991” and the operating procedures for the department to determine the procedures for recording complaint records and the retention of such records.

 

3.      By letter dated November 7, 2001, the respondent responded to the complainant’s request informing him that he could come to the department’s office during normal business hours to review any public records that he would like but for his information “a quick review of [the] files did not find any records of complaints or repairs to Colby Drive since 1990” and that an operating procedures manual for the department does not exist.

 

4.      By letter dated December 4, 2001 and filed on December 5, 2001, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to his request within the required time period and by failing to comply with his request.

 

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.

 

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, to the extent the requested records exist, they are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent failed to respond to his request within the required time period, §1-206, G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

(a)    Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request . . . Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.

and

(b)(1) Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 . . . may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. 

 

9.      It is found that the denial provisions in §1-206(a), G.S., do not create a right for which the Commission can find a violation of the FOI Act, but rather that section provides a definite time period beyond which a requester may invoke the right to appeal to this Commission pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S.

 

10.  It is concluded therefore that because the complainant received a response before he filed his complaint in this matter, §1-206(a), G.S., is not applicable.

 

11.  With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent failed to comply with his request, it is found that the respondent invited the complainant to visit his office and review any record he would like.

 

12.  It is found that the complainant never went to the respondent’s office.

 

13.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that he did not go to the respondent’s office because the respondent indicated that there were no records responsive to his request.

 

14.  It is found however that at the time of the respondent’s letter, only a cursory review was conducted under the assumption that the complainant intended to visit the office and review the files himself. 

 

15.  It is also found that subsequent to the respondent’s letter, the respondent’s secretary conducted a more thorough search and found records responsive to the complainant’s request and set them aside for the complainant.

 

16.  It is found however that the respondent never informed the complainant that there were records responsive to his request which may have been helpful in resolving this matter in light of the respondent’s statement, as described in paragraph 3, above. 

 

17.  It is found that there was some confusion between the parties that may have been avoided if there were better communication between the two.

 

18.  Nonetheless, it is found that the respondent did not fail to comply with the complainant’s request, but rather the complainant failed to exercise his right to inspect the records during the regular office or business hours of the department as provided in §1-210(a), G.S.

 

19.  It is also found that the respondent does not maintain an operating procedures manual for the department.

 

20.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

 

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 there is technically no violation in this matter, the Commission admonishes the respondent for his failure to notify the complainant that he did in fact have records responsive to the complainant’s request.  Such notification would have been in keeping with the spirit and intent of the FOI Act.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 2002.

 

 

_______________________________________

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 V. Fletcher

116 Colby Drive

East Hartford, CT 06108-1416

 

Billy G. Taylor, Director of

Public Works, Town of East Hartford

c/o Jose R. Ramirez, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-534/FD/paj/5/24/2002