FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on March 18, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., at which time the respondent appeared but the complainant did not appear to prosecute the case.  A Report of Hearing Officer, dated March 18, 2008, was considered, but not adopted, by the Commission at its regular meeting on April 9, 2008.  The Commission, at such meeting, voted to reopen the hearing in this matter, and such hearing was held on May 27, 2008.  The complainant and the respondent appeared at the May 27, 2008 hearing, 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 email dated September 11, 2007, at 9:42 p.m., the complainant requested from the respondent “a copy” of a document entitled “Procedures—Site Visits” (the requested record).  It is also found that the complainant further stated in such email, “[p]lease email it to me at your earliest convenience.” 

 

3.  It is found that, by email dated September 12, 2007, at 11:37 a.m., Kristin Stearley, a part-time administrative assistant to the respondent, informed the complainant that a copy of the document could be purchased from her during her working hours, or through the building department during its business hours.  It is found that Ms. Stearley made a photocopy of the requested record on September 12, 2007, and left it at the town hall for the complainant to pick up.  It is further found that the complainant informed Ms. Stearley, via email on September 12, 2007, that she would “pick up the document” at the town hall on September 14, 2007.

 

4.  It is found that when Ms. Stearley read the September 11, 2007 request described in paragraph 2, above, she did not notice the particular phrasing regarding the complainant’s preferred method of transmission.  Rather, it is found that Ms. Stearley interpreted the request for “a copy” of the requested record, as an “ordinary” or “usual” request for a paper copy of the requested record.  

 

5.  It is found that, on September 14, 2007, the complainant went to the town hall and either viewed, or picked up, the copy of the requested record Ms. Stearley left for her.

 

6.  It is found that, after Ms. Stearley made the photocopy of the requested record and left such record for the complainant to pick up, Ms. Stearley believed the complainant’s request had been satisfied, and that the matter was concluded. 

 

7.  By letter dated September 14, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her “an electronic copy” of the record described in paragraph 2, above, and by failing to transmit such record to her via her “preferred format of receipt”, i.e., “electronic mail,” on September 12, 2007. [1]

 

8.  It is found that, by email dated December 18, 2007, Ms. Stearley, at the town manager’s request, also provided to the complainant an electronic copy of the requested record, and further, that Ms. Stearley provided such electronic copy to the complainant via email.

 

9.  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.

 

10.  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).

 

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

 

12.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant argued that, because the requested record was available in electronic format, the respondent is required, under §1-211, G.S., to transmit such record to her via email, and the respondent violated the FOI Act in not emailing such record to her promptly upon request. 

 

13.  It is concluded that, because the respondent did, in fact, provide the complainant with an electronic copy of the requested record, and transmitted such record via email, it is not necessary to reach the issue of whether the respondent is required under §1-211, G.S., to transmit such record via email. 

 

14.  It is found that the respondent did not provide an electronic copy of the requested record to the complainant via email until December 18, 2007, due to a genuine misunderstanding of the complainant’s request.

 

15.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the complainant was promptly provided with a copy of the requested record.

 

            16.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged.

 

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.

           

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 13, 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:

 

Carol Szymanski

c/o Barbara J. Ruhe, Esq.

915 Silas Deane Highway

Wethersfield, CT 06109

           

Wethersfield Historic District

Commission, Town of Wethersfield

c/o John W. Bradley, Jr., Esq. and

Jonathan R. Chappell, Esq.

Rome McGuigan, PC

One State Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-496FD/paj/8/15/2008