The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 18, 1998 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 §1-18a(1), G.S.

	2.  It is found that by letter dated December 1, 1997, the complainant requested 
that the respondent superintendent provide him with a copy and/or permit him to inspect 
twenty five categories of records, pertaining to the curriculum, policies, procedures and 
expenditures of the New Hartford Public Schools (hereinafter, “requested records”).

	3.  It is found that by letter dated December 4, 1997, the respondent 
superintendent acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request, provided him with 
access to inspect or to receive a copy of records responsive to requested records items #5, 
#6, #8, #9, #10, #11 and #15, informed him that at least three weeks would be required to 
determine if the remaining records requested existed in the form requested, and requested 
prepayment for any copies to be provided for which the fee exceeded $10.00.

	4.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on December 8, 1997, the 
complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by 
failing to comply with his request within four business days, and failing to provide him 
with all of the requested records.

	5.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant limited his complaint to the 
respondents’ failure to provide him with all of the requested records.  Consequently, the 
timeliness of the respondents’ response is no longer at issue.

	6.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state 
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public 
agency … shall be public records and every person shall 
have the right to inspect such records promptly during 
regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such 
records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.

	7.  It is found that the respondents maintain records that are responsive to some of 
the complainant’s requests, and such records are public records within the meaning of §1-
19(a), G.S.

	8.  It is found that in addition to those records provided to the complainant and 
described in paragraph 3, above, the respondents, by letter dated December 12, 1997 
provided the complainant with access to inspect or to receive a copy of records 
responsive to requested records items #2, #3, #4, #7, #18, #22, #23 and #24.

	9.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain any records that are responsive 
to the requested records items #12, #13, #14, #16, #19, #20 and #21, and the respondent 
superintendent so informed the complainant in his letter of December 12, 1997, described 
in paragraph 8, above.

	10.  It is found that presently, the complainant takes issue only with the 
respondents’ response and those records provided by the respondents in connection with 
requested records items #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #15 and #18.

	11.  With respect to the records described in paragraph 10, above, it is found that 
the respondents have provided the complainant with the records they maintain that are 
responsive to all of his requests.

	12.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §§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 dismissed.

	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of July 22, 1998.

_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:

W.  David Zitzkat
999 Asylum Avenue, Suite 502
Hartford, CT 06105

Superintendent, New Hartford Public Schools, Town of New Hartford; and New Hartford 
Public Schools, Town of New Hartford
c/o Atty. Thomas B. Mooney
Shipman & Goodwin
1 American Row
Hartford, CT 06103-2819

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1997-395/FD/tcg/07291998