Freedom of Information Commission

of the State of Connecticut

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                    Final Decision

 

Janice Beauregard,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                              Docket #FIC 95-268

 

Richard Colpitts, Assistant Director,

Hartford Health Department, and

Hartford Health Department,

 

                        Respondents                                         July 10, 1996

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 6, 1996, 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.  Katherine McCormick, Acting Director of the Hartford Health Department, was originally named as a party respondent in this matter; however, it is found that she had no involvement in the underlying facts of this appeal and she is therefore dismissed as a party in this matter.

 

            2.  The remaining respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            3.  By letter dated and filed August 11, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by requiring her to submit a written request in order to inspect public records, and requesting the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

 

            4.  It is found that on August 11, 1995, the complainant went to the offices of the respondent health department, and requested to inspect the monthly X-ray statistics for radiology services and the annual report for the same statistics from 1991 to the present date.

 

            5.  It is further found that the complainant was told to speak to respondent Colpitts concerning her request, who repeatedly instructed her to submit her request to inspect the subject records in writing.

 

            6.  It is found that the requested statistical records and annual report are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            7.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides, in pertinent 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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.”  [Emphasis added.]

 

            8.  It is concluded that nothing in the FOI Act authorizes the respondents to require that a request to inspect public records be reduced to writing, and that by requiring the complainant to submit her request in writing, the respondents violated the provisions of §1-19(a), G.S.

 

            9.  It is found that respondent Colpitts is the official directly responsible for denying the complainant access to inspect the requested records, and that such denial was without reasonable grounds.

 

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

 

            1.  The respondents shall immediately provide the complainant with access to inspect the requested records.

 

            2.  Within two weeks of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter, respondent Colpitts shall remit a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to the Commission.

 

            3.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of §1-19(a), G.S.


 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 10, 1996.

 

 

 

Elizabeth A. Leifert

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:

 

Janice Beauregard

12 Merrill Street

Unit B3

Hartford, CT 06106

 

Richard Colpitts, Assistant Director, Hartford Health Department, and Hartford Health Department

  c/o Karen K. Buffkin, Esq.

Special Counsel

Office of the Corporation Counsel

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission