FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Richard R. Lindquist,
against Docket #FIC 95-15
Vice President and Provost, University of Connecticut Health
Center and Assistant to the Vice President, University of
Connecticut Health Center,
Respondent January 10, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 13, 1995, 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 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated November 30, 1994, the complainant requested of the respondents copies of all "the financial accounts of the FACS facility for the period of time that Dr. Goldschneider was head of the facility" and copies of the FACS account review.
3. By letter dated December 1, 1995, the respondents acknowledged receipt of the complainant's request and indicated that they would gather together the documents requested for the complainant.
4. On December 9, 1994, the respondents provided the complainant with certain of the requested financial account records covering a period of approximately one year only of the many years of records the complainant was seeking.
5. By letter dated December 15, 1994, the complainant stated that he was not satisfied with the records provided by the respondents. Particularly, the complainant indicated that he continued to seek records beyond the time period provided to him.
Docket #FIC 95-15 Page 2
6. By letter dated December 23, 1994, the respondents again responded to the complainant, stating that they were working on providing the remainder of the financial account records. With respect to the account review records, the respondents stated that they had not found any records of such a review.
7. By letter dated January 12, 1995 and filed on January 18, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him copies of all of the requested records.
8. It is found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
9. Subsequent to the filing of the complaint in this matter, there were additional communications between the parties, in which the respondents provided records covering approximately an additional eight years and inquired as to whether the complainant wanted additional records from the earlier years requested that were archived and stored off-site. The respondents thereafter provided the complainant with additional records.
10. Further, in the subsequent communications between the parties, the complainant began to identify specific records that he was seeking, such as purchase orders or requisitions for specific categories of items and "income logs" related to the FACS facility. The respondents attempted to comply with the complainant's specific requests and provided him with additional records in response thereto.
11. However, at the hearing in this matter, the complainant alleged that the respondents' failure to provide accesss to all of the requested records within four days violated the FOI Act and that the respondents to date had not fully complied with his request.
12. The respondents contend that they have in good faith attempted to comply with the complainant's request, but that they are at a loss to understand precisely what additional records the complainant is seeking. They also state that they are ready and willing to comply with the complainant's request to the furthest extent possible.
13. It is found that although there apparently were communication problems between the respondents and the complainant, the respondents made a good faith attempt to comply with the complainant's request, in accordance with 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S.
14. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the complainant's request in this matter.
Docket #FIC 95-15 Page 3
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 without prejudice.
2. In light of the respondents' willingness to provide the complainant with all the records he is seeking, the Commission encourages the parties to continue communicating to that end. If a dispute arises with respect to the disclosure of any particular records, the Commission shall retain jurisdiction to consider such a dispute upon the filing of a proper complaint.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 10, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 95-15 Page 4
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:
Richard R. Lindquist
Department of Pathology
UCONN Health Center
Farmington, CT 06030
Vice President and Provost, University of Connecticut Health Center and Assistant to the Vice President, University of Connecticut Health Center
c/o William N. Kleinman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
University of Connecticut Health Center
Farmington, CT 06030-3800
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission