FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 3, 2008, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  After the hearing in this matter, the hearing officer admitted additional evidence from the complainants and respondents, pursuant to the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies §1-21j-38.

 

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by hand-delivered letter dated October 19, 2007, the complainants requested from the respondents electronic copies of the following records:

 

a.       “All Microsoft Outlook Contacts information on the computer assigned to Heidi Hamilton immediately prior to her termination and administrative leave from the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism (CCCT).  This request includes all fields, including but not limited to: name, address(es), phone number(s), email address(es).”

b.      “All emails (and attachments, if applicable) received or sent by Heidi Hamilton at any email address assigned to Ms. Hamilton by the CCCT from January 1, 2007 to the present.  This includes all emails received by Ms. Hamilton as a direct recipient or as a cc: or bcc: recipient, as well as all emails sent by Ms. Hamilton, from any state-assigned email address.”

c.       “All correspondence of any kind, whether hard copy or electronic (emails, Word, etc.), received by any employee or board member of the CCCT that refers to Heidi Hamilton in a complimentary way.  This request is not time-limited and includes any such record dating to the beginning of Ms. Hamilton’s tenure at the CCCT.”

d.      “The hard drive of any personal computer(s) assigned to Heidi Hamilton by the Commission on Culture and Tourism.”

 

3.  It is also found that, by hand-delivered letter dated October 19, 2007, the complainants also requested from the respondents “a copy of Ms. Hamilton’s service ratings, signed or authorized by the former Executive Director of CCCT, Jennifer Aniskovich.”  By the same letter, the complainants further requested from the respondents “a copy of Ms. Hamilton’s personnel file and any supervisor’s notes maintained by [Karen Senich] or any supervisor of Ms. Hamilton’s since she began her tenure at the CCCT.”

 

4.  It is further found that, on or about December 10, 2007, the complainants received personnel records from the respondents, responsive to complainants’ request described in paragraph 3, above.  At the hearing on this matter the respondents withdrew their complaint with respect to the records described in paragraph 3, above.  Therefore, such records are no longer at issue in this matter. 

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated October 25, 2007, the respondents acknowledged receipt of the requests described in paragraph 2, above, and informed the complainants that the respondents would notify them once the documents had been compiled and were ready to be mailed to the complainants or reviewed by the complainants at the respondents’ offices.  The respondents also advised the complainants that the respondents “must request some of the requested information from DOIT.”

 

6.  It is also found that, by letter dated October 31, 2007, the respondents informed the complainants that the hard drive described in paragraph 2.d, above, “is not a public record available pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.”  The respondents also informed the complainants that if they “wish to request particular documents or records located on Ms. Hamilton’s hard drive,” they should submit a specific request for such information.

 

7.  It is further found that, by letter dated November 13, 2007, the complainants expanded their October 19, 2007 request for electronic copies, described in paragraph 2, above, by specifically requesting from the respondents the following records, which copies shall hereinafter be referenced as “the requested records:”

 

a.       “All emails, including attachments, to or from Heidi Hamilton (either directly or as a cc: or bcc), including any saved as .pst on her hard drive or any backed up by DOIT or the Agency’s back-up system.”

b.      “All notes, reports, statements, letters, interview documentation reviewed and gathered from “sources” which is listed in the “Summary of Investigation as Numbers 1 through 28.”

c.       “All emails, including attachments, to or from Karen Senich (either directly or as a cc: or bcc:), including any saved as .pst files on her hard drive or any backed up by DOIT or the Agency’s back-up system that include the following words ‘thank you’, ‘appreciate’ ‘Jenny’, ‘Becky’, ‘Marge’, ‘Paul’, ‘Kim Pita’, ‘Holly Wilson’, ‘Fred Clark’, ‘Mark Dixon’, ‘Ellen Woolf’, ‘Kevin Segalla’, ‘Bruce Heller’, ‘Jennifer Aniskovich’, and ‘Stan McMillen.’”

d.      “All emails, including attachments, to or from Karen Senich (either directly or as a cc: or bcc:), including any saved as .pst files on her hard drive or any backed up by DOIT or the Agency’s back-up system that include references to ‘Cerc’;’DECD’;’CDA’;’DRS’;’Secretary of the State.’”

e.       “All emails, including attachments, to (either directly or as a cc: or bcc:), including any saved as .pst files on Karen Senich’s hard drive or any backed up by DOIT or the Agency’s back-up system from members of the general public.”

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated November 17, 2007, the respondents acknowledged receipt of the requests described in paragraph 7, above, and informed the complainants that the respondents would notify them once the documents had been compiled and were ready to be mailed to the complainants or reviewed by the complainants at the respondents’ offices.  The respondents also advised the complainants that the respondents “must request some of the requested information from DOIT.”

 

9.  It is also found that on December 10, 2007, the respondents provided the complainants with certain documents that were not responsive to all of the requests made by the complainants in paragraph 7, above.

 

10.  By email dated January 7, 2008 and filed with the Commission on January 8, 2008, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by denying their request for copies of the requested records.

 

11.  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.

 

12.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., states 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…receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

13.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., states in relevant part:

 

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

 

14.  It is found that to the extent the requested records exist and are maintained by the respondents, such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

15.  It is also found that some of the requested records are maintained by the State Department of Information and Technology (“DOIT”).

 

16.  It is further found that, by letter dated March 19, 2008, the respondents again acknowledged receipt of the requests described in paragraphs 2 and 7, above, and informed the complainants that “due to the enormity of the request, [they are] requesting that [the complainants] provide [the respondents] with an external hard drive, at least 200 gigs, or 30-40 DVDs onto which the requested information can be transferred.”  The respondents also indicated that they would purchase such hard drive or DVDs at a charge to the complainants if the complainants were unable to provide either storage mediums.

 

17.  It is found that on March 31, 2008 the complainants delivered to the respondents a 500 gigabyte hard drive.

 

18.  It is also found that, at the time of the hearing in this matter, the respondents had not provided the complainants with copies of the requested records on the 500 gigabyte hard drive described in paragraph 17, above.

 

19.  It is further found that the complainants were told by the respondent director in March 2008 that the delay was due to the respondents’ limited assistance in reviewing the complainants’ voluminous records request.  The complainants were also told that the delay was a result of computer difficulties the respondent director experienced while attempting to comply with the complainants’ request.

 

20.  It is found that the respondents failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure.

 

21.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide copies of the requested records to the complainants, as alleged in the complaint.

 

 

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

 

1.  Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainants with copies of the records described in paragraph 2 (a,b,c) and paragraph 7 of the findings, above, free of charge.

 

2.  If the complainants do not receive copies of the requested records, they may file a new complaint with the Commission.

 

3.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the 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 September 10, 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:

 

Laila A. Mandour, Alice M. Sexton and

the Administrative and Residual

Employees Union, Local 4200

705 North Mountain Road

Suite A211

Newington, CT 06111

 

Acting Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism

c/o Darren P. Cunningham, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-017FD/paj/9/16/2008