FIC2007-098

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Paul F. Rowen,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2008-098
Vera Rosa, President, Bethlehem Ambulance Association; Dan Parlato, Vice President, Bethlehem Ambulance Association; Judi Rockwell, Secretary, Bethlehem Ambulance Association; Susan March, member, Bethlehem Ambulance Association; and Bethlehem Ambulance Association,
		Respondents	August 27, 2008

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 18, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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. It is found that, by letter addressed and sent to the respondents on January 25, 2008, the complainant requested from the respondent Bethlehem Ambulance Association (“respondent Association”), copies of:

a. “the written complaint(s) made by the people involved as required by the Associations [sic] Rules and Regulations;”

b. “names and postal addresses of all parties involved;”

c. “all email regarding this matter from any member of the association;”

d. “the name of the paramedic that allegedly fell in the rear of the ambulance on this call.”

2. The respondents maintain that the respondent Association is not a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., and therefore not subject to the FOI Act.

3. By letter of complaint dated February 9, 2008, and filed with the Commission on February 13, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent Association is a public agency and that the respondents violated the FOI Act by denying him a copy of the records described in paragraph 1, above.

4. Section 1-200(1), G.S., defines a “public agency” or “agency,” in relevant part to mean:

…(A) Any executive, administrative or legislative office of the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official…(B) Any person to the extent such person is deemed to be the functional equivalent of a public agency pursuant to law; or (C) Any “implementing agency,” as defined in section 32-222.

5. It is found that neither subdivision (A) or (C) of subsection (1) of §1-200, G.S., applies in this case. Consequently, for the respondent to be considered a public agency for purposes of the FOI Act, over which the Commission has jurisdiction, it must be determined whether the respondent Association is “deemed to be the functional equivalent of a public agency pursuant to law,” within the meaning of §1-200(1)(B), G.S.

6. In Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOI Commission, 181 Conn. 544, 554 (1980) (“Woodstock”), the Supreme Court adopted the “functional equivalent” test to determine whether an entity is a public agency. Such test consists of the following four criteria: (1) whether the entity performs a governmental function; (2) the level of government funding; (3) the extent of government involvement or regulation; and (4) whether the entity was created by government.

7. Subsequently, in Connecticut Humane Society v. FOI Commission, 281 Conn. 757, 761 (1991), the Supreme Court elaborated that all four factors set forth in Woodstock are not necessary for a finding of functional equivalence, but rather that “all relevant factors are to be considered cumulatively, with no single factor being essential or conclusive.”

8. It is found that the respondent Association is authorized to provide ambulance transportation and emergency medical services to persons in the towns of Bethlehem, Watertown, Woodbury and Morris. It is also found that the respondent Association is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors.

9. It is found that the respondent Association’s budget is comprised, in large part, of third party and patient payments. However, it is also found that the respondent Association also has an oral contract with the town of Bethlehem, through which it receives fuel and garage space from the town for its vehicles. In addition, it is found, that the town of Bethlehem pays the respondent Association approximately $9000 per year to provide advance life support services for the town.

10. It is found that the respondent Association pays its own insurance premiums and buys its own equipment.

11. It is found that the respondent Association is subject to state statutes governing emergency medical services, particularly §19a-175, G.S., et seq.

12. It is found that the respondent is subject to the regulations of the state’s Office of Emergency Medical Services, pursuant to §19a-178-1 to §19a-178-21.

13. It is found that the respondent Association offered no evidence at the hearing on this matter as to whether or not such entity was created by government.

14. Based on the foregoing, it is found that:

(a) with respect to the first criterion, the respondent Association performs a governmental function by virtue of the statutory scheme set forth in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the findings, above;

(b) with respect to the second criterion, the government does not substantially fund the respondent Association;

(c) with respect to the third criterion, the respondent Association is substantially regulated by the state by virtue of the statutes and regulations referred to in paragraphs 11 and 12, of the findings, above; and

(d) the respondent Association failed to offer any evidence with respect to the fourth criterion.

15. It is concluded that based on the totality of relevant criterion, that the respondent Association is the functional equivalent of a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1)(B), G.S., and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission. See Yantic Volunteer Fire Co. v. FOI Commission, 44 Conn. Sup. 230 (1995), affirmed 42 Conn. App. 519 (1996), Marcucio v. Board of Directors, Valley Emergency Medical Services, Inc., Docket #FIC 2004-245; Feins v. President and Chief Executive Officer, Granby Ambulance Association, Docket #FIC 2000-005; and Bergin and Ellis v. Glastonbury Volunteer Ambulance Association, Inc., Docket #FIC 1991-059, for similar conclusions in analogous cases.

16. It is found that, on January 31, 2008, the complainant received from the respondents a copy of a one page Summary Report on Paul Rowen. It is further found that such report is responsive to the request described in paragraph 1.a, above.

17. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant stated his belief that the respondents maintain other records responsive to the request described in paragraph 1.a, above. However, it is found that the report described in paragraph 16, above, is the only record responsive to the request described in paragraph 1.a, above, maintained by the respondents.

18. With respect to the requests described in paragraphs 1.b and 1.c, above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain any records responsive to such requests.

19. It is found that the request described in paragraph 1.d, above, is not a request for records, but rather is a request that the respondents answer a question. It is concluded that the FOI Act does not require public agencies to answer questions.

20. It is concluded that the respondents 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 27, 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:

Paul F. Rowen

506 Munger Lane

Bethlehem, CT 06751

Vera Rosa, President,