FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 5, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the hearing, Walter Moriarty, whose email account was the subject of the request in this matter, was granted intervenor status.

 

            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.  By letter of complaint received and filed May 20, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by not complying with his request for records.

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated March 23, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide copies of “all e-mails sent to or from the following address—Walter.Moriarty@po.state.ct.us for the past 6 months.”

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated March 24, 2005,  the principal of E.T. Grasso-Southeastern Technical High School  acknowledged the complainant’s request and indicated that he was in the process of honoring the request.

 

            5.  It is found that, by letter dated March 30, 2005, John Williamson, the Education Principal Labor Relations Specialist, Bureau of Human Resources of the State of Connecticut Department of Education, indicated to the complainant that he would be “reviewing all of Mr. Moriarty’s e-mails for the past six months to determine which would constitute public documents under Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 1-210.”

 

6.  It is found that, on or about March 31, 2005, the complainant narrowed the scope of his request to only those emails sent to or from selectmen from the Town of Canterbury, correspondence with Steven Orlomoski, and correspondence with the local newspapers.

 

7.  It is found that, by letter dated April 21, 2005, an attorney for the Office of Legal and Governmental Affairs of the State of Connecticut Department of Education indicated to the complainant that she had reviewed Mr. Moriarty’s emails for the past six months and found 106 pages of documents that were responsive to the narrowed request.  These emails were provided to the complainant.  No emails in the records provided to the complainant covered the period March 12 through March 23, 2005.

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated May 4, 2005 to the respondent, the complainant requested:

 

… completion  of my original request of 03-23-05.  The only info to be deleted should have been any student or school related material and spam material.  Information also did not cover specified time period which should have been up to and including 03-23-05.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent misinterpreted the complainant’s May 4, 2005 request literally as one for all emails, not just emails responsive to the narrowed March 31, 2005 request, and so notified Mr. Moriarty of the new request.

 

10.  It is found that the respondent discovered an additional twenty-three emails  responsive to what he believed to be the complainant’s expanded May 4, 2005 request.

 

11.  It is found that, by letter dated May 8, 2005 to Mr. Williamson, Mr. Moriarty objected to the release of any of the records requested on March 23, 2005 and re-requested on May 4, 2005.

 

12.  It is found, however, that the complainant’s May 4, 2005 request was not intended by the complainant to broaden the scope of his March 31, 2005 request, and that the respondent subsequently came to that understanding.

 

13.  It is therefore found that the request that is at issue in this case was for the records identified in paragraphs 3 and 6 of the findings, above, which request was reiterated on May 4, 2005.

 

14.  It is found that, by letter dated September 2, 2005, the respondent indicated to the complainant that he obtained a waiver from Mr. Moriarty of his objection to four of the additional twenty-three emails, and that the four emails were being provided.

 

15.  It is found that none of the additional twenty-three emails, including the remaining nineteen emails withheld from the complainant, are responsive to the complainant’s request as described in paragraphs 3, 6 and 13 of the findings, above.

 

16.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

    “Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

    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, (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. 

 

18.  It is concluded that all of the emails provided to the complainant, and the additional nineteen emails not provided to the complainant, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

19.  It is found that the respondent conducted a diligent search of its email server and the backup tapes of the server, and that there are no other public records maintained by the respondent that are responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

20.  The complainant contends that there should be more emails responsive to his request because the correspondence stopped between March 12 and March 23, 2005.

 

21.  Neither the respondent nor the intervenor could provide an explanation for the absence of emails between March 12 and March 23, 2005.

 

22.  It is found, nonetheless, that no emails for Mr. Moriarty’s account exist for this period.  Although this circumstance appears unusual, no evidence was presented suggesting that any emails had been, or could have been, intentionally or permanently deleted from the server by either the respondent or the intervenor before the backup tape was made.

 

23.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 12, 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:

 

Mark O. Weeks

13 Lisbon Road

Canterbury, CT 06331

  

Director, State of Connecticut,

Ella Grasso Technical High School

c/o Emily V. Melendez, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

Walter Moriarty

7 South Canterbury Road

Canterbury, CT 06331-1536

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-234FD/paj/4/18/2006