FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 18, 2002, 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 in April 2002 three members of the Bristol board of education and two administrators of the Bristol public schools attended a conference in New Orleans.

 

3.      By letter dated June 10, 2002, the complainant made a request to the respondent superintendent for “a report of all expenses associated with the trip [to New Orleans] broken down by travel, lodging, meals, registration for the conference and any other miscellaneous reimbursable expenses for both the administrators and the three board members.”

 

4.      By letter dated June 21, 2002, the respondent superintendent informed the complainant that the requested report was being compiled and that the report will be made available at the board of education’s July 10, 2002 meeting pursuant to the board’s policy that reports requested by one board member are provided to all board members at the same time.

 

5.      By letter dated June 26, 2002, and filed on July 1, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with her request and requested that the commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents.

 

6.      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. 

 

7.      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 . . . .”

 

8.      At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that the complainant’s June 10, 2002 request was for the creation of a report and not to receive a copy of or to inspect a record and therefore they were not required under the FOI Act to comply with her request.  The respondents explained, however, that the complainant is a member of the Bristol board of education and as such is entitled to request that records be created on her behalf.  The respondents further explained that since the complainant’s request was treated as one from a board member, the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by withholding access to the report until the entire board could have access to it as required by the board’s policy.

 

9.      It is found that the complainant’s request was not for access to inspect or to receive a copy of a public record that existed at the time of her request, but for the respondents to create a record.  It is concluded that the respondents are not required under the FOI Act to create such a record.

 

10.  It is found that the report was not created until after the filing of the complaint in this matter.

 

11.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a) or §1-212(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainant.  The complainant’s request for the imposition of a civil penalty is hereby denied.

 

 

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 Commission wishes to encourage the respondents to communicate openly and with greater candor with the complainant in the future as such communication may have avoided the need for a hearing in this matter and spared the expenditure of valuable state resources.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 8, 2003.

 

_______________________________________

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:

 

Jane Anastasio

78 Holley Road

Bristol, CT 06010

 

Ann Clark, Superintendent of Schools,

Bristol Public Schools; Michael Wasta,

Assistant Superintendent of Schools,

Bristol Public Schools; William Smyth,

Business Manager, Bristol Public Schools;

and Richard Saporito, Chairman, Board

of Education, City of Bristol

c/o Brian Clemow, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin, LLP

One American Row

Hartford, CT 06103-2819

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-288/FD/paj/1/9/2003