FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
William J. Murray and
Underwriters Support Group, Inc.,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-217
Agency Data Processing
Manager,State of Connecticut,
Department of Insurance,
Respondent April 24, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 4, 1996, at which time the complainants 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 letters
dated May 25, 1995 and June 26, 1995, as clarified by telephone conversations
between the parties, the complainants requested that the respondent provide
them with:
a) the department's "agent data
base" on diskettes in "ascii," supplemented by the companies
each agent on the data base represents, excluding the data fields for social
security numbers and pending investigation information.
b) any data layout information,
definitions, field definitions for symbols or codes used, and any corresponding
reference information.
3. Having
failed to receive the requested information, by letter dated June 26, 1995 and
filed June 28, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission and alleged
that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act
by failing to comply with their request.
4. It is
found that the files and records containing the requested information are
public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.; and
that the information requested in paragraph 2a), above, is contained in
computer-stored records within the meaning of 1-19a, G.S.
#FIC 95-217 Page
2
5. It is
found that in order to comply with the complainants' request, the respondent
needed to do more than simply retrieve or print out an existing computer-stored
record.
6. It is
found that it took the respondent a total of 40 hours during the month of
August 1995 to comply with the complainants' request, as clarified.
7. It is
found that the respondent copied the requested files onto 37 diskettes and
copied 20 pages of records containing data descriptions, but is holding them
pending prepayment by the complainants.
8. Section
1-15(b), G.S., provides:
"The fee for any [computer-stored record] shall
not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency. In determining such costs for a copy, other than a printout which
exists at the time that the agency responds to the request for such copy, an
agency may include only: (1) An amount
equal to the hourly salary attributed to all agency employees engaged in providing
the requested computer-stored public record, including their time performing
the formatting or programming functions necessary to provide the copy as
requested, but not including search or retrieval costs ... (3) the actual cost
of the storage devices or media provided to the person making the request in
complying with such request. ..."
9. It is
found that by letter dated September 5, 1995, as clarified at the hearing on
this matter, the respondent, through counsel, requested payment at the rate of
$.75 per diskette ($27.75), $.25 per page ($5.00), and $28.94 per hour for the
respondent's time ($1,157.60), for a total cost of $1,190.35.
10. The
complainants maintain that the respondent violated the FOI Act by not utilizing
the most cost effective means to comply with their request, as required by
1-19a(c), G.S.; specifically, that $.75 per diskette is excessive because
the complainants can obtain 50 diskettes for $20.00.
11. Section
1-19a(c), G.S., applies only to the acquisition of a computer system, equipment
or software, which is not at issue in this case.
12. It is
concluded that under 1-15(b), G.S., the respondent may charge the
complainants her actual cost to provide the requested records, as set forth in
paragraph 9, above.
#FIC 95-217 Page
3
13. It is
further concluded that under 1-15(c), G.S., the respondent may require
prepayment from the complainants before providing them with the requested
records.
14. It is
finally concluded, under the facts and circumstances of this case, that the
respondent did not violate 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.
2. The
Commission suggests that when responding to future requests, the respondent may
wish to provide complainants with the estimated cost of compliance before
undertaking such a substantial amount of work.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-217 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:
William J. Murray
Underwriters Support Group,
Inc.
P.O. Box 777
Unionville, CT 06085-0777
Agency Data Processing
Manager, State of Connecticut, Department of Insurance
c/o William J. Prensky, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission