FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 16, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.  It is found that, by a letter dated May 31, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent “make available for inspection all records kept on file regarding the RHAM building construction project.  This would include all records maintained at the Central Office building on Pendleton Drive as well as those records maintained by your agent, Turner Construction, at the trailer offices on Wall Street.”

 

3.  It is found that, by reply letter dated June 3, 2002, the respondent stated in pertinent part:

 

Please be advised that we will be happy to arrange access for you to all such records at the Central Office, however, we do not control the records of Turner Construction and, therefore, cannot require them to allow you access as you requested.  Turner Construction is a private company and is not subject to the state's Freedom of Information Act for such a request.

 

            4.  It is found that at some time subsequent to receipt of the letter described in paragraph 3, above, the complainant went to the Region 8 Central Office and inspected documents on file in that location.

 

5.  By letter of complaint dated June 17, 2002 and filed with the Commission on June 24, 2002, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by denying him access to view ‘"public" documents concerning a "public" project paid for with "public" monies.’

 

            6.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant indicated that he is seeking to review documents, including invoices, of prices paid by Region 8 for the boilers and burners that were installed as part of a school construction project (hereinafter “project”).

 

            7.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant explained that he believes the respondent violated the FOI Act by not furnishing him with records related to the specific price paid by Region 8 for certain boilers and burners installed in the course of the project. 

 

            8.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” to include:

“…any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.”

 

            9.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such in accordance with section 1-212.”

 

10.  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.”

 

11.  It is found that, to the extent records or information exist that are responsive to the complainant’s request, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

            12.  It is found, however, that the records sought by the complainant – i.e., records relating to a specific price paid by Region 8 for boilers and burners at the high school - do not exist.

 

            13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act.

 

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.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 2003.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

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:

 

Donald Keeney

87 Burnt Hill Road

Hebron, CT  06248

 

 

Superintendent of Schools,

Regional School District 8

c/o Richard A. Mills, Jr., Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin, LLP

One American Row

Hartford, CT  06103-2819

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-278/FD/mes/3/3/2003