FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 26, 2004, 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 letter dated August 18, 2003, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with copies of the documentation of the policy regulating the use of computers, and “…documentation, including lists, computer printouts, memos, etc., for the last five years…documenting Superintendent John O’Brien’s computer use, including websites visited, games or programs used, and the amounts of time spent on use.” 

 

3.  It is found that, via an August 25, 2003 telephone call from the respondent’s attorney to the complainant, the respondent denied the request described in paragraph 2, above, insofar as it related to the superintendent’s computer usage.  However, the respondent did provide the complainant with a copy of an October 24, 2003 memorandum to the students and the staff of the schools system regarding computer usage.  It is found that the complainant received such memorandum on August 26, 2003.

 

4.  By letter dated August 26, 2003, and filed with the Commission on August 27, 2003, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of information [hereinafter “FOI”]  Act by denying her copies of records related to the superintendent’s use of the computer system.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant clarified that her request was limited to a report on the superintendent’s computer usage that the complainant believes had been prepared by the former technology coordinator for the respondent [hereinafter “the report”].   It is the report that is the subject of this complaint. 

 

5.  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…."  

 

6.  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.” 

 

            7.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant, who is a reporter, contended that she was informed of the report’s existence by two unnamed sources. 

 

8.  It is found that the former technology coordinator described in paragraph 4, above, left her position near the time of the request and complaint in this matter, and has moved out of state.  It is further found that the current technology coordinator has made a search of the records left by the former technology coordinator for the report, and cannot locate it.  It is further found that there is only hearsay evidence to suggest that the report was ever created.   It is therefore found that the report does not exist, and is not maintained or kept on file by the respondent.

 

9.   It is found that the report is not a public record within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

10.   It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

            11.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant requested that the Commission opine on whether, if the report, or other similar document, did exist, such document would be subject to mandatory disclosure under the FOI Act.   However, in the context of a contested case, it is not appropriate for the Commission to opine on speculative matters, which are not before it.

 

            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 complainant is advised that she may contact a Commission staff attorney, who can provide an informal opinion regarding the request described in paragraph 11 of the findings, above. 

           

           

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 24, 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:

 

Gale Courey Toensing

138 Warren Turnpike Road

Falls Village, CT  06031

 

Board of Education,

Regional School District No. 1

c/o Thomas N. Sullivan, Esq.

and Nicole A. Bernabo, Esq.

Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT  06105-4286

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-306/FD/abg/03/26/2004