FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 30, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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.      The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that on March 7, 2008, the complainant made a written request for copies of:

 

a.       “TMS [Torrington Middle School] Conditions Found Report” and

 

      b.  “a report dated 12/06/05 by Occupational Risk Control Services, Inc.”

 

3.      By letter dated and received on April 4, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide copies 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 the provisions of 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 . . . .”

 

6.       It is found that the records requested by the complainant, to the extent that they exist, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.      With respect to the complainant’s request for the “TMS Conditions Found Report,” it is found that the respondent provided the complainant with copies of such records at least twice before.  It is found that the complainant does not believe the respondent’s assertion that it has provided her with all copies of records that are responsive to her request for “TMS Conditions Found Report.”  It is found, however, that the respondent’s testimony is credible.

 

8.      With respect to the complainant’s request for “a report dated 12/06/05 by Occupational Risk Control Services, Inc.,” it is found that the respondent previously provided such records to the complainant over a year ago.  The complainant contends that the records provided by the respondent are a revised version of the draft report dated 12/06/05.  It is found that the complainant’s request in this matter was for the “unrevised,” or draft version of the report from December 2005.

 

9.      It is found that at the time of the complainant’s request for records, the respondent did not keep on file or maintain a copy of the draft report.  It is found that when the respondent received the draft report, it returned it to its author in order to make corrections. It is found the respondent did not and does not keep or maintain a copy of the draft report.  It is further found that the revised report of February 10, 2006 incorporated the draft report and the corrections, which were omissions from the draft version. 

 

10.   It is found that the respondent provided a copy of the February 10, 2006 report to the complainant soon after the respondent received it from Occupational Risk Control Services, Inc.

 

11.   It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

12.   The Commission takes administrative notice of the three previous appeals – Docket #s FIC 2005-604; FIC2006-418, and FIC2007-233 - filed by the complainant against the respondent concerning the same records that are at issue in this matter.  It is found that the records that the complainant requested in this matter, described in paragraph 2, above, were provided to the complainant well before she filed her appeal with this Commission. 

 

 

13.  The respondent moved for imposition of a civil penalty against the complainant in this matter, claiming that her complaints “are not based on reasonable grounds and constitute harassment of the respondent, its staff and representatives.” 

 

14.  Section 1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

If the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, … the commission may, in its discretion, impose against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. 

 

15.  The Commission denies the respondent’s motion; however, the Commission suggests that the complainant take heed of §1-206(b)(2), G.S., before filing future appeals with this Commission concerning the records described in paragraph 2, above.

 

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 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:

 

Joanne Avoletta

c/o Deborah G. Stevenson, Esq.

226 East Flag Swamp Road

Southbury, CT 06488

 

Board of Education,

Torrington Public Schools

c/o Victor M. Muschell, Esq.

104 Church Street

Torrington, CT 06790

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-242FD/paj/9/16/2008