FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In
the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Lamberto
Lucarelli,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC
90-391
Charles
William Oliver, University of Connecticut, Office of the Ombudsman,
Respondent September
25, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on February 14 and April 19, 1991, at which times the
complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and
presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #'s FIC 90-390 through 90-398 were
consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.
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 August 16, 1990 (hereinafter "August
request"), the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with
access to "all remaining information concerning [him]" not provided
pursuant to the settlement agreement in contested case docket #FIC 90-148, Lamberto
Lucarelli v. University of Connecticut.
3.
By letter dated September 10, 1990, the complainant reiterated his
August request.
4.
By letter dated September 11, 1990, the respondent's counsel notified
the complainant that "all reasonable efforts [had been] made to comply
with [his] requests," and copies of all responsive documents that were in
the University's possession had been furnished to the complainant on or about
August 9, 1990.
5.
By letter dated September 21, 1990, and filed with the Commission on
September 24, 1990, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging a
failure of the respondent to respond to and comply with his document request.
Docket
#FIC 90-391 Page 2
6.
In his September 24, 1990 appeal to the Commission, the complainant also
requested that the Commission "consider" an incident of an allegedly
secret meeting between the respondent and several of his colleagues concerning
the investigation of a complaint which the complainant had filed with the
University that occurred some time in 1980.
7.
The complainant also requested the imposition of civil penalties.
8.
The respondent requested that the Commission take administrative notice
of the record and case file in contested case docket #FIC 90-148.
9.
The respondent argues that the issue before this Commission in contested
case docket #'s FIC 90-390 through 90-398 was in fact heard and decided in
contested case docket #FIC 90-148.
10.
The respondent notes that the complaint in contested case docket #FIC
90-148 was dismissed in accordance with a settlement agreement entered into by
the parties and complied with by the respondent on or about August 9, 1990.
11.
The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and case file
in contested case docket #FIC 90-148.
12.
It is found that the issue of the respondent's noncompliance with the
complainant's document request concerning information allegedly in the
possession or custody of the named respondents in contested case docket #'s FIC
90-390 through 90-398, was in fact the subject of the complaint which was heard
and decided in contested case docket #FIC 90-148.
13.
It is found that the information provided to the complainant by the
respondent on or about August 9, 1990 in connection with the settlement
agreement in contested case docket #FIC 90-148, is all of the information in
the possession of the respondent which is in any way responsive to the
complainant's document request in this case.
Docket
#FIC 90-391 Page 3
14.
It is found that based upon the complainant's claims of indigency the
University provided him with approximately 825 pages of documents as part of
the settlement agreement in contested case docket #FIC 90-148, free of charge.
15.
At the hearing on this matter, the complainant testified that the
documents he is seeking pertain to correspondence and submissions regarding a
1980 application to the University of California at Berkeley, and research
papers that he wrote which were informally submitted to faculty members of the
University.
16.
It is found that the records the complainant is seeking are not
documents that were supplied to the University or a member of the University
faculty as part of coursework for a course offered by the University.
17.
It is found that most of the records the complainant requested from the
respondent are records that were created by the complainant.
18.
It is found that the complainant retains either copies or drafts of what
he allegedly supplies to the respondent.
19.
It is found that there is no legal requirement that a University
professor retain copies of every piece of correspondence allegedly generated by
him, or allegedly sent to him by a student over the course of approximately ten
years.
20.
Section 1-18a(d) states in relevant part that:
"Public records or files"
means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's
business prepared, owned, used, received, or retained by a public agency,
(emphasis added). . . .
21.
It is found that under the circumstances of this case, most of the
documents requested by the complainant are not public records within the
meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket
#FIC 90-391 Page 4
22.
However, it is found that all reasonable efforts have been made by the
respondent to find and provide to the complainant the documents that are
responsive to his request.
23.
It is found that under the circumstances of this case, all records in
the possession or custody of the University or University personnel, pertaining
to matters involving the complainant have been supplied to the complainant.
24.
It is found that the respondent has complied with the disclosure
requirements of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., to the best of his ability.
25.
It is found that this appeal is one of ten successive appeals by the
complainant that have been based upon repeated requests for the same
information.
26.
It is found that with respect to the requested records this appeal was
taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and principally for the purpose
of harassing the respondent.
27.
It is found that the respondent failed to promptly respond to the
complainant's August request.
28.
However, under the unique facts of this case, and for the reasons set
forth in paragraphs 24-26 of the findings, above, it is concluded that the
respondent's failure to respond to a document request identical to several that
had already been complied with, was not an attempt by him to avoid or ignore
the disclosure requirements of §1-15, G.S.
29.
It is found that with respect to the complainant's allegation of a
"secret or illegal meeting" which occurred some time in 1980, this
Commission is without subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal is not
timely with respect to that allegation.
Docket
#FIC 90-391 Page 5
30.
Section 1-21i(b), states in relevant part that:
.... A notice of appeal shall be
filed within thirty days after such denial [of the right to inspect or copy
records], except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case
the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal
receives notice in fact that such meeting was held....
31.
The complainant maintains that he became aware of an allegedly secret or
illegal meeting involving the respondent on or about August 9, 1990.
32.
The complainant's appeal was filed with this Commission on September 24,
1990, more than thirty days after the complainant contends that he first became
aware of information which he relies upon as the basis for his allegation that
an illegal or secret meeting took place some time in 1980.
33.
It is concluded that with respect to his allegation of an illegal
meeting, the complainant failed to comply with the mandatory time requirements
for the filing of an appeal as set forth in §1-21i(b), G.S.
34.
The record does not support the imposition of civil penalties against
the respondent, and the Commission declines to impose them.
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
September 11, 1991.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket
#FIC90-391 page 6
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:
LAMBERTO
LUCARELLI
21
Howard Street
Old
Saybrook, CT 06475
RALPH
URBAN
Assistant
Attorney General
MacKenzie
Hall
110
Sherman Street
Hartford,
CT 06105
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission