FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 15, 2004, 2004, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket# FIC 2003-316; Lorri Cavaliere v. Superintendent of Schools, Amity Regional School District #5, and Docket #FIC 2003-340; Lorri Cavaliere v. Superintendent of Schools, Amity Regional School District #5. 

 

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, on May 29, 2003, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with copies of the minutes of the Amity Regional School District’s Board Facilities Committee for the following months: October, November and December of 2002 and January 2003, as well as the minutes to a meeting at which “the by-law was voted on.”

 

            3.   It is found that, on May 30, 2003, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the January 2003 minutes described in paragraph 2, above, and informed her that such minutes were the only minutes that the respondent had.

 

            4.   It is found that, by e-mail dated September 4, 2003, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with copies of the minutes of the Amity Regional School District’s Board Facilities Committee for the following months: September, October, November and December of 2002 and January 2003, as well as the agenda and/or minutes to a meeting at which discussion was held regarding the purchase of an administrator’s office furniture. 

 

5.   It is found that, by e-mail dated September 4, 2003, the respondent informed the complainant that she would have a search performed for the requested minutes, but that that there are no minutes of the office desk issue described in paragraph 4, above, since such issue was discussed in executive session.

 

6.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on September 11, 2003, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by not providing copies of the records described in paragraph 4, above.

 

7.  At the hearing in this matter and on brief, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that it was not filed in a timely manner.  The respondent contends that, since the complainant failed to file a complaint within thirty days after her request for almost identical records described in paragraph 2, above, she is forever time-barred by §1-206(b)(1), G.S., from filing a complaint regarding same or similar records.   However, it is concluded that the FOI Act does not bar a requester from renewing a request for records, after the expiration of an initial appeal period.  See Mayor, City of Torrington, v. Freedom of Information Commission, (Sup. Ct., Judicial District of New Britain) (Cohn, J.)  (March 19, 2002).  Accordingly, the respondent’s motion to dismiss based on timeliness is hereby denied.

 

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

 

[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 section 1-212….

 

9.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.” 

 

10.  It is found that the respondent keeps and maintains the minutes of the Amity Regional School District’s Board Facilities Committee.

 

11.  It is found that, by memorandum dated October 20, 2003, the respondent informed the complainant that the only minutes which could be located were the January 2003 minutes, and provided the complainant with a second copy of such minutes.

 

12.  It is found that, on January 15, 2004, the respondent located the minutes of the Amity Regional School District’s Board Facilities Committee for the following months: July, August, and September of 2002, and provided copies of such minutes to the complainant at the hearing in this matter.  It is further found that such minutes were located during a search for service records having nothing to do with the hearing in this matter, in a Facilities Committee box labeled “Service Master,” a contractor for the district.   It is also found that, at such time, the respondent conducted a further search through other records, and could find no other requested minutes. 

 

13.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent testified that she could not be sure that minutes for October, November and December 2002 exist, since at such time subcommittees were not always diligent about creating minutes.

 

14.  It is found that the respondent is not a member of the Amity Regional School District’s Board Facilities Committee, and that, under the FOI Act, such committee is responsible for creating its minutes.  Nevertheless, it is found that, soon after she began her position as superintendent in October 2002, the respondent discovered that subcommittees did not always keep minutes, and implemented new procedures requiring strict compliance with the requirement to create minutes, as well as to keep and maintain such records in an organized manner.  It is found that such procedures were implemented in January 2003.  The Commission commends the respondent for implementing such procedures.

 

            15.  It is found that the respondent’s second provision of the January 2003 minutes and her provision of the September 2002 minutes were not prompt.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. 

 

On the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order by the Commission is hereby recommended. 

 

 

            Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 10, 2004.

 

 

___________________________________

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:

 

Lorri Cavaliere

c/o Joshua D. Lanning, Esq.

Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt & Dow, P.C.

350 Orange Street, PO Box 606

New Haven, CT  06503-0606

 

Superintendent of Schools,

Amity Regional School District #5

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

Shipman & Goodwin, LLP

One American Row

Hartford, CT  06103-2819

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-335/FD/abg/03/11/2004