FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Paul Tatro and the Glastonbury Citizen,  
  Complainants  
  against    Docket #FIC 2004-314
Board of Education, Glastonbury Public Schools,  
  Respondent  January 12, 2005
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 8, 2004, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared 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 on June 10, 2004, the complainant, Paul Tatro, made an oral request for a copy of the respondent’s written response to a complaint filed with the State Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities [hereinafter CHRO] against the respondent.

 

2.      It is found that complainant Tatro made a second request on June 16, 2004 and then a third request on June 18, 2004 to the Glastonbury Superintendent of Schools who informed the complainant that the “district did intend to respond but did not agree that the response should be a public document.”

 

3.      By letter dated July 13, 2004 and filed on July 15, 2004 the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with complainant Tatro’s requests.

 

4.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

5.      It is found that at the time of complainant Tatro’s requests, the respondent had not written a response to the CHRO complaint filed against it and therefore had no record responsive to complainant Tatro’s request.

 

6.      It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of 1-210(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainants.

 

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 January 12, 2005.

 

________________________________

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 Tatro and the Glastonbury Citizen

PO Box 373

Glastonbury, CT 06033

 

Board of Education, Glastonbury Public Schools

c/o Richard Voigt, Esq.

McCarter & English LLP

CityPlace I, 36th floor

Hartford, CT 06103

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2004-314FD/paj/1/19/2005