FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 25, 2008, at which time the complainant 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 September 13, 2007, the complainant requested from the respondents copies of  “all documents that reflect or relate to the rules and regulations governing student organizations and/or the distribution of student organization materials on campus in the Connecticut Community-Technical Colleges…system, and specifically at Capital Community College….”  It is also found that the complainant requested that all copying fees be waived, claiming such request would be a “benefit to the general welfare.”

 

3.  By email dated October 10, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the records described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

4.  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.

 

5.  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” (emphasis added).

 

6.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.  It is found that the complainant’s letter of request, described in paragraph 2, above, was forwarded from the president’s office to the dean of student services (“dean”) for response “sometime in December.”  It is further found that, by letter dated January 22, 2008, the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the Constitution of the Student Senate, and a copy of Chapter 1 of the Student Handbook “that directly addresses student organizations on campus.”   Such copies were provided to the complainant free of charge, as requested.

 

8.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant asserted that there are additional records responsive to his request that were not provided to him.  As an example, the complainant described a conversation he had with the dean, in which the dean mentioned a “student club handbook” (distinct from the Student Handbook), which was not provided to him.  However, it is found that the “student club handbook,” referred to by the dean, was a promotional brochure, intended to inform students, or prospective students, of the various clubs and organizations available to them on campus and not a document reflecting or relating to rules and regulations governing student organizations.  Thus, it is found, that such document was not fairly within the scope of the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2, above.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged, in failing to provide such document to the complainant.           

 

9.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant also asserted that he was seeking all records that would demonstrate the dean’s authority over student organizations.

 

10.  It is found that the request described in paragraph 9 is a new request for records, not fairly contained within the scope of the request described in paragraph 2, above, which is the subject of this appeal.  Such request, therefore, shall not be considered further herein.

 

11.  It is found that, upon receiving the request described in paragraph 2, above, the dean conducted a diligent search for any and all records responsive to the request. 

 

12.  It is further found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain any records responsive to the request, other than those described in paragraph 7, above, which were provided to the complainant. 

 

13.  However, it is also found that, in providing the records described in paragraph 7, above, to the complainant approximately four months after such records were requested, the respondents’ response was not prompt, as required by §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. 

14.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of the FOI Act.  

 

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

            1.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.                                        

           

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 26, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Matthew McLaughlin

176 Sunset Drive

Glastonbury, CT 06033

           

President, State of Connecticut,

Capital Community College; and

State of Connecticut, Capital

Community College

c/o Darren P. Cunningham, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-556FD/paj/4/1/2008