FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 6, 2003, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing this case was consolidated with docket #FIC 2003-079; Edward A. Peruta v. Rock Regan, Chief Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology; and Nuala Forde, Communications Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology.

 

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.      By e-mail dated February 4, 2003 and filed on February 6, 2003, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him prompt access to inspect public records on February 5, 2003.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

 

3.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified his complaint and explained that he was alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act during his February 5, 2003 visit to the offices of the Department of Information Technology (hereinafter “the department”) by:

 

a.       denying him access to other floors of a public building and limiting his access to the front lobby;

 

b.      denying him access to respondent Regan to make his FOI request;

 

c.       requiring him to make his FOI request to one particular employee; and

 

d.      arguing about the mandates of the FOI Act instead of complying with the request he made on that date.

 

The complainant alleged that all of the above resulted in the respondents denying his “right to prompt access to inspect public records” as required by §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

4.      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 . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void. 

 

5.      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.” 

 

6.      It is found that the complainant visited the department on or about February 5, 2003 intending to submit a FOI request directly to respondent Regan for “all paper or electronically stored notes, memos, letters or documents created or received, since July of 2002, that reference the creation, completion or testing of, a software program to separate criminal history files [on] behalf of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety.”  

 

7.      It is found that the security guard, stationed in the lobby of the department’s building, precluded the complainant from going beyond the lobby.

 

8.      It is found that the executive secretary to respondent Regan met the complainant in the lobby and informed him that he should direct his request to respondent Forde.

 

9.      It is found that the complainant insisted that he be allowed access to the floor of respondent Regan’s office to submit his request directly to respondent Regan, however, the security guard and the executive secretary insisted that he could not.

 

10.  It is found that at some time during his visit on February 5, 2003, the complainant submitted his request described in paragraph 6, above, to respondent Forde.

 

11.  It is found that on or about February 13, 2003, respondent Forde responded to the complainant’s February 5, 2003 request and informed him that the records he requested on that date had been compiled and would be available for his inspection once they were reviewed by the appropriate employees to determine if any exemption applied to them.

 

12.  It is found that on February 20, 2003, the complainant again visited the department’s office, met with respondent Forde and inquired of the status of his February 5, 2003 request; he was informed by respondent Forde that the records responsive to that request would be available on that afternoon or on the following day.

 

13.  It is found that the complainant received a copy of the records responsive to his February 5, 2003 request on or about February 27, 2003.

 

14.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 3a, b, and c, above, the complainant argued at the hearing on this matter that the policy of the respondent department to limit access to a public building to the lobby diminishes and curtails his right to prompt access to inspect public records.  The complainant argued that in order to ensure prompt access during regular business hours, a request must be made to the person most familiar with the requested records so that there is no misdirection or “the run around” and therefore access to other floors and offices in the building must be permitted.  The complainant also argued that the department’s policy of requiring a member of the public to make FOI requests to one specific agency employee further diminishes and curtails his right to prompt access to inspect public records. 

 

15.  It is found that nothing in the FOI Act requires an agency to permit access to floors or offices in its building and such access is not inherent to the right to prompt access to inspect or to receive copies of public records.

 

16.  It is found that nothing in the FOI Act requires an agency to permit access to particular employees for the purpose of submitting a FOI request and such access is not inherent to the right to prompt access to inspect or to receive copies of public records.

 

17.  It is found that nothing in the FOI Act prohibits an agency from delegating the responsibility of responding to and complying with FOI requests to a specific employee or employees and such delegation does not inherently deny prompt access to inspect or to receive copies of public records.  

 

18.  Consequently it is concluded that with respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 3a, b, and c, above, the complainant failed to allege a violation of the FOI Act.

 

19.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 3d, above, the complainant argued, at the hearing on this matter, that the respondents could have complied with his request by the close of the normal business day on February 5, 2003 had they chosen not to spend the time resisting and arguing about the mandates of the FOI Act. 

 

20.  There is no evidence in the record that when the complainant submitted his February 5, 2003 request to respondent Forde that there was a delay in complying due to arguing over the mandates of the FOI Act.

 

21.  Consequently, the complainant failed to prove the allegation described in paragraph 3d, above and it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant in paragraph 3d, above.

 

22.  It is further concluded that, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents did not violate the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S, as specifically alleged by the complainant in paragraph 3, above.

 

23.  Accordingly, the complainant’s request for the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents is 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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Edward A. Peruta

38 Parish Road

Rocky Hill, CT  06067

 

Rock Regan, Chief Information Officer,

State of Connecticut, Department of

Information Technology; and Nuala Forde,

Communications Director, State of Connecticut,

Department of Information Technology

c/o Augustus I. Cavallari, Jr., Esq.

General Counsel, State of Connecticut,

Department of Information Technology

101 East River Drive

East Hartford, CT  06108-3274

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-054/FD/abg/10/10/2003