FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Lyn Bixby and The Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-252
Connecticut Department of Public Works and Director of Leasing,
Connecticut Department of Public Works
Respondents January
13, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on October 5, 1987, at which time the
complainants 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:
1. The respondents are public agencies within
the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated July 7, 1987, the complainants
requested copies of all lease proposals submitted in response to solicitation
numbers LP-87-4a, LP-87-4b, and LP-87-4c.
3. By letter dated July 10, 1987, the
respondent director stated the complainants' request had been referred to the
Office of Attorney General.
4. On August 26, 1987, an assistant attorney
general, by telephone, stated the lease proposals were not disclosable because
they contained pricing information that is exempt from disclosure under
§53a-161b, G.S.
5. By letter of complaint dated September 2,
1987 and filed with the Commission on September 9, 1987, the complainants
alleged the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act in their
refusal to provide them with copies of the lease proposals.
Docket #FIC 87-252 Page 2
6. The respondents claim the lease proposals
are exempt from disclosure under §§1-19(b)(5) and (7), 4-26b, 4-26e and 4-26i,
and 53a-161b, G.S. They also claim the
complaint was not filed in a timely fashion.
7. It is found the letter of complaint was
filed within 30 days from the date of the denial of the request within the
meaninf of §1-21i(b), G.S.
8. It is found the respondents sought to obtain
office space for the Department of Revenue Services under solicitation number
LP-87-4a, for the Department of Environmental Protection under solicitation
number LP-87-4b, and for the Office of the Comptroller under solicitation
number LP-87-4c.
9. It also is found property owners submitted
lease proposals in response to the solicitation numbers identified in paragraph
7, above.
10. It further is found the respondents have
reviewed the lease proposals and have disclosed to the complainants the names
of the property owners submitting the proposals, the property owners' principal
contacts and the location of the properties.
11. It further is found the current status of
the lease proposals is as follows:
a.
The closing date for the lease proposals under solicitation number
LP-87-4a was September 29, 1987.
b.
The State Property Review Board is reviewing the lease proposal selected
under solicitation number LP-87-4b.
c.
The respondents are negotiating a lease to obtain office space under
solicitation number LP-87-4c.
12. It is found the respondents failed to prove
that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(5), G.S.
13. It further is found the lease proposals do
not constitute real estate appraisals within the meaning of §1-19(b)(7), G.S.,
and therefore they are not exempt from public disclosure under that statutory
provision.
14. §4-26i, G.S., prohibits a person affiliated
with any requesting agency from discussing its real estate needs or interests
outside of that agency without prior formal authorization by the commissioner
of public works.
Docket #FIC 87-252 Page 3
15. §4-26i, G.S., also prohibits anyone
obtaining knowledge of an agency's real estate needs as a result of his
employment by the state from disclosing any information regarding the state's
real estate needs to anyone except as authorized by the commissioner of public
works.
16. It is found the respondents are not persons
affiliated with a requesting agency within the meaning of §4-26i, G.S., and
therefore the lease proposals are not exempt from public disclosure under the
first part of that statutory provision.
17. It also is found the respondents placed an
advertisement, pursuant to §4-127c, G.S., in one or more newspapers expressing
their interest in obtaining leases for the Department of Revenue Services,
Department of Environmental Protection and Office of the Comptroller.
18. Since the respondents already have disclosed
the state's real estate needs to the public, it is concluded the lease
proposals are not exempt from public disclosure under the second part of
§4-26i, G.S.
19. §53a-161b, G.S., prohibits bidders and
offerors from disclosing pricing information contained in their proposals to
any other bidder, offeror or competitor, prior to the award of a contract by a
commission, agency or department of the state.
20. It is found the requested records are not
exempt from disclosure under §§4-26b and 4-26e, G.S.
21. It is found the respondents are not bidders
or offerors within the meaning of §53a-161b, G.S., and therefore, it is
concluded the lease proposals are not exempt from disclosure under that
statutory provision.
22. It further is concluded the lease proposals
are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S., and are subject to disclosure
under §1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by
the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the
complainants with copies of the lease proposals, described in paragraph 2 of
the findings, above.
Docket #FIC 87-252 Page 4
2. Henceforth, the respondents shall act in
strict compliance with the requirements of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 13,
1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission