FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Ethan Book, Jr.

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-31

 

State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General

 

                                Respondent                          October 25, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 13, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter dated January 24, 1995 the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with "underlying basic documentation" concerning the authority of the Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority (hereinafter "CRRA") to redevelop the site of the Greater Bridgeport Resource Recovery Project (hereinafter "Bridgeport project" or "Bridgeport site").

 

                3.  By letter dated February 3, 1995 and filed February 8, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to respond to his records request.

 

                4.  It is found that having received notice from the Commission of the complaint in this matter, the respondent replied to the complainant's request by letter dated April 3, 1995 and provided the complainant with certain records concerning CRRA.  The records provided by the respondent however, did not specifically relate to the Bridgeport project.  Rather, the respondent informed the complainant that it had searched its records and could not locate any records directly pertaining to the Bridgeport project.

 

Docket #FIC 95-31                                               Page 2

 

                6.  It is further found that in its April 3, 1995 letter, the respondent also advised the complainant that it did not represent CRRA because CRRA is not a state agency.

 

                7.  It is found that by letter dated April 20, 1995 the complainant informed the respondent that he believed other records might exist and provided the respondent with minutes of an April 19, 1983 CRRA meeting wherein reference is made to a board member's intention to obtain "an opinion" from the respondent concerning CRRA's right to redevelop the Bridgeport site.

 

                8.  It is found that the respondent conducted another search of its records in response to the complainant's April 20, 1995 letter but did not locate any opinion records pertaining to the Bridgeport project.  The respondent informed the complainant by letter dated May 24, 1995 that it appeared that it had not issued any opinion pertaining to the Bridgeport project.

 

                9.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant indicated that he was dissatisfied with the time it took the respondent to reply to his request and that he still believed that some other records might exist.

 

                10.  It is found however, that the respondent conducted two thorough searches of its records which did not yield the type of records sought by the complainant and that the respondent then reasonably concluded that such records do not exist.

 

                11.  With respect to the issue of timeliness in replying to the complainant's request, the respondent claimed that the delay was due to an administrative oversight.

 

                12.  Because the respondent could find no records directly responsive to the complainant's request, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of 1-15(a) and 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 complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Docket #FIC 95-31                                               Page 3

 

                2.  Although the Commission concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act in this case, the Commission is troubled by the respondent's unnecessary delay in replying to the complainant's letters of request and urges the respondent to effectuate procedures to prevent future delays in responding to requests from the public.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-31                                               Page 4

 

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:

Ethan Book, Jr.

P.O. Box 1385

Fairfield, CT 06430

 

State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General

c/o William Gundling, Esq.

Associate Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105-2294

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission