FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 15, 2003, 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.      By letter dated January 15, 2003 the complainant made a request to the acting commissioner of transportation for certain records which included a request for “a plain copy of all maps, designs and/or plans that depict any aspect of the state highway project known as ‘Grove Street Widening’, a/k/a/ project #135-H025 and #135-245-17.  Such copies shall include an ‘as built’ map of said project.”

 

3.      By letter dated January 24, 2003, the complainant received a response which in relevant part informed the complaintant that “as built” mapping and plans are available at the respondent department’s District III Construction Office in New Haven, and that the complainant should direct his request for such maps to a Mr. Richard DeSanti at that office.

 

4.      By letter dated February 24, 2003, the complainant made a request to Mr. DeSanti for certain records which included “a plain copy of all ‘as built’ maps for the state highway project known as ‘Grove Street Widening’, a/k/a/ State project #135-245.  Reproductions may be limited to that portion of Grove Street between the Forest/Street Grove Street intersection and the Grove Street/Hillandale Road intersection.”

 

5.      It is found that on or about March 12, 2003, the complainant received a letter of transmittal, a receipt with a notation that read “copied large size s sheets of as build plans,” and a copy of five maps from the respondent department.

 

6.      By letter dated March 13, 2003 and filed on March 14, 2003, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request for “as built” maps.

 

7.      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 (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 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. 

 

8.      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 . . . .”

 

9.         At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that the respondents failed to comply with his request for “as built” maps and in support of his claim he referred to the notation on the receipt indicating that “as build plans” were provided rather than “as built” maps, as requested.  In further support of his claim, the complainant argued that “as built” maps reflect a projects' construction upon completion and that the plans he received do not, because a certain fire hydrant was actually in a location other than that reflected on one of the maps. 

 

10.  It is found, however, that the maps provided to the complainant on or about March 12, 2003, as described in paragraph 5, above, constitute “as built maps” as the term is used and understood by the respondents.

 

11.  It is also found that the respondents maintain no other maps responsive to the complainant’s request, whether referred to as “as built maps” or “as build plans.” 

 

12.  It is found that the respondents complied with the complainant’s request and it is therefore concluded that they 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.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 12, 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:

 

Vincent P. Larobina

113 Grove Street

Stamford, CT  06901

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of

Transportation; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Transportation

c/o Drew S. Graham, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, PO Box 120

Hartford, CT  06141-0120

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-102/FD/abg/11/14/2003