FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 9, 2005, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared 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.   It is found that, by letter dated April 26, 2005, the complainants asked that the respondents provide them with access to: a) the complete punch list prepared by KBA for a sewage treatment plant;  b) the complete punch list prepared by KBA for all JBHS site work, including athletic fields and complete drainage system;  c) the final engineer’s design specifications and purchase order for ATP for retrofit hatch to mitigate hydrogen

sulfide gas; and d) any and all as-built drawings that may have been submitted, including

sewage treatment plant, and fields A, B, C, and D.

 

3.  By letter dated May 25, 2005, and filed with the Commission on May 26, 2005, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to promptly provide them with the records described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

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… inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours….” 

 

5.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainants informed the Commission that their request as described in paragraph 2.a, 2.b., and 2.c, above, had been resolved and that the only portion of their request still at issue was that described in paragraph 2.d, above [hereinafter “the requested records”].  

 

6.  It is found that, at the time of the request described in paragraph 2, above, as well as the filing of the complaint described in paragraph 3, above, the requested records did not exist.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.    

 

7.  However, it is found that, as of the date of the hearing in this matter, the requested records do now exist.  Specifically, it is found that, on August 8, 2005, the respondents requested a postponement of the hearing in this matter, so that they could consult with the State of Connecticut, Commissioner of Public Works regarding the applicability of the exemption set forth at §1-210(b)(19), G.S., to the requested records.     Such request was denied.

 

8.  On August 11, 2005, the complainants filed a motion requesting that the Commission take administrative notice of the stipulated agreement in Docket #FIC2005-248, William Oppenheimer and Kathleen Oppenheimer v. Director of Finance and Operations, Board of Education, Regional District 9, a separate contested case which was withdrawn by the complainants prior to hearing.  On August 30, 2005, the complainants made a motion to reopen this matter, since they allege that the respondents had failed to contact the State of Connecticut, Commissioner of Public Works, as described in paragraph 7, above.   

 

9.  Certainly, the Commission expects that the respondents will honor their representations and agreements.  However, both motions described in paragraph 8, above, are hereby denied, since the Commission is without jurisdiction either to enforce the stipulated agreement in Docket #FIC2005-248, or to provide relief in this matter, since the respondents did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint herein.      

 

 

 

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 Commission urges the respondents to honor the agreement in Docket #FIC2005-248, which would likely resolve the complainants’ pursuit of the requested records and avoid the need for the filing of a new complaint.  Failing that, however, the parties are advised that the complainants may submit a new request for the requested records, and file a new complaint with the Commission, should they be denied access to such records.  

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 22, 2006.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

William Oppenheimer and

Kathleen Oppenheimer

186 Lonetown Road

Redding, CT 06896-1501

 

Chairman, Construction Completion

Committee, Board of Education,

Regional District 9; Director of

Finance and Operations, Board of

Education, Regional District 9;

and Chairman, Board of Education,

Regional District 9

c/o Frederick L. Dorsey, Esq.

Siegel, O’Connor, O’Donnell & Beck

150 Trumbull Street

Hartford, CT 06103 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-247FD/paj/3/23/2006