FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Daniel Ricard & Ricard Associates, Inc.,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-365

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles,

 

                        Respondent                  June 28, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 23, 1995, 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.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on October 14, 1994, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to enter a contract with the complainant Ricard Associates, Inc., pursuant to Public Act 94-206(e), which section would grant the complainants' business special status whereby it could receive license registration and driver history information without the subject of the request being notified of the complainants' request and identity.

 

            3.  It is found that Public Act 94-206, effective on October 1, 1994, outlines the conditions upon which one may obtain motor vehicle registration, license and driver information from the respondent department.  With the exception of certain businesses that have contracted with the respondent pursuant to subsection (e) of the public act, persons requesting such information are now required to complete an application, provide identification, and pay a fee or disclose a juris number.  The subject of the request is also notified of the request and the requester's identity pursuant to the law.

 

            4.  It is found that under the facts of this case, the respondent has not denied access to its records to the com-

 

Docket #FIC 94-365                           Page 2

 

plainants.  Rather, the respondent has failed to enter a contract with the complainants thereby granting them special status pursuant to subsection (e) of Public Act 94-206.

 

            5.  This Commission notes that it lacks the jurisdiction to judge whether the respondent is obligated to enter the above-referenced contract with the complainants.

 

            6.  It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent is not in violation of 1-19(a), G.S., or any other provision of the FOI Act.

 

            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 June 28, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-365                           Page 3

 

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:

Mr. Daniel Ricard

Ricard Associates, Inc.

P.O. Box 653

Manchester, CT 06405

 

State of Connecticut, Department of Motor Vehicles

c/o John Yacavone, Esq.

Legal Services Division

Department of Motor Vehicles

60 State Street

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission