FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final
Decision
Daniel J. Filer,
Complainant,
against Docket
# FIC 1996-071
Superintendent of Schools, Middletown
Public Schools and Director of Pupil Personnel
and Special Education Services, Middletown
Public Schools,
Respondents, August
14, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 28, 1996, at which
time the complainant 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 and
conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies
within the meaning of §18a(a),
G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated and filed
with the Commission on March 4, 1996, and supplemented by letter dated April
23, 1996 and filed with the Commission on April 25, 1996, the complainant
appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom
of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to records of all costs
associated with the employment of Dr. Sherrill Werblood, (hereinafter “bill” or
“bills”). The complainant requested
that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondents.
3. It is found that by letters dated
January 18 and February 22, 1996 the complainant requested that the respondent
superintendent provide him with the bills.
Specifically, the complainant requested all costs pertaining to the
employment of Werblood, including the date she was hired, all contract
agreements, hourly rate, number of hours served and purpose of her employment.
4. It is found that the respondent
superintendent by letter dated January 22, 1996, and the respondent director by
letter dated February 27, 1996, informed the complainant that no bills
submitted by Werblood existed.
5. It is found that as of the date of the
hearing on this matter no records exist which are responsive to the
complainant’s request which have not been provided to him by the respondents.
6. It is found that the bills at issue are
public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d),
G.S.
7. It is found that the respondent
director received from Werblood a February 10, 1996 bill on February 20, 1996,
and a March 10, 1996 bill on March 13, 1996.
8. It is found that the respondent
director’s February 27, 1996 denial, as described in paragraph 4, above,
contained inaccurate information when she indicated to the complainant that no
bills existed as of February 27, 1996.
9. It is found that on February 28, 1996
the respondent director became aware that she had in her possession the
February 10, 1996 bill.
10. It is found that the respondent director
did not provide the complainant with a copy of the February 10, 1996 bill until
March 25, 1996.
11. The respondent director contends that at
the time of her receipt of the complainant’s February 22, 1996 letter,
described in paragraph 3, above, no March 10, 1996 bill existed, and having not
received a new request for bills from the complainant until June 20, 1996 she
was not obligated to provide him with the March 10, 1996 bill until after
receiving his June 20, 1996 request.
12. It is found that the complainant and the
respondent director had a discussion on March 19, 1996 at which time the
respondent director indicated she would provide the complainant with the
February 10, 1996 bill.
13. It is also found that the respondent
director on March 19, 1996 possessed the March 10, 1996 bill and provided the
complainant with only the February 10, 1996 bill on March 25, 1996, even though
she had recently spoken to the complainant on March 19, 1996, as described in
paragraph 12, above.
14. It is concluded that the respondent
director violated §1-19(a),
G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the
February 10 and March 10, 1996 bills.
15. It is found that the respondent
director’s denial of access, as described in paragraph 14, above, was without
reasonable grounds.
The following order by
the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent director shall
immediately remit to this Commission a civil penalty in the amount of $50.00.
2. Henceforth, the respondent director
shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement of §
1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 14, 1996.
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
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:
Daniel J. Filer
27 Magnolia Avenue
Middletown, CT 06457
Superintendent of Schools, Middletown
Public Schools and Director of Pupil Personnel and Special Education Services,
Middletown Public Schools
c/o Christine L. Chinni, Esq.
Shipman and Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC 1996-071,FD