The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 30, 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 March 18, 1998, the complainant requested 
from the respondent superintendent the following information regarding a Dr. Gary 
Racusin, a Dr. Dorothy Stubbe, a Dr. George Krause, a Dr. Jan Fugal and any other 
medical doctors and psychologists employed by the Milford School System from 1995 to 
the present:

a.  the total sum paid from public funds to each doctor for each academic 
year;
b.  the type of service provided by each doctor;
c.  the number of teachers referred to the above named doctor and the 
purpose for each referral;
d.  a copy of the contract for each doctor;
e.  and an explanation of how the contracts to each doctor were awarded;
The complainant also requested the number of teachers who have been suspended without 
pay between 1995 and the present, the length of the suspension and the reason for the 
suspension.
 

	3.  It is found that by letter dated March 24, 1998, the respondents provided the 
complainant with the information described in paragraph 2a, above, only.
 

	4.  It is found that by letter dated March 27, 1998, the complainant requested the 
remaining information requested in his March 18, 1998, letter to the respondents and 
access to the records which contained the information he requested.
 

	5.  It is found that by letter dated April 3, 1998, the respondent director informed 
the complainant that the board of education did not maintain the information in the form 
that he requested, that to compile the information for the complainant she would have to 
search through varies records and that she was not required to compile the information for 
the complainant since the information did not exist in the form he requested.
 

	6.  By letter dated April 16, 1998, and filed on April 21, 1998, the complainant 
appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of 
Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide the requested information.  The 
complainant requested that the Commission impose the maximum fine against the 
respondents.  
 

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

Except as otherwise provide by any federal law or state 
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public 
agency . . . shall be a public record 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 this 
subsection.

	8.  Section 1-15(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon 
request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

	9.  With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2b, above, it 
is found that the respondents do not maintain a document responsive to the complainant’s 
question but at the hearing on this matter the respondents testified that one of the doctors 
is a psychologist and that the other is a psychiatrist and that each provides services related 
to their field.  
 

	10.  With respect to the complainant’s request in paragraph 2c, and the last 
sentence of paragraph 2, above, it is found that the complainant did not make a request 
for records but instead made a request for information.
 

	11.  It is concluded that while the FOI Act requires a public agency to provide 
copies of public records and/or access to public records thereby giving any requester the 
ability to extract from those records any information contained therein, it does not require 
a public agency to create a new document by extracting the information sought from the 
records and compile that information into another document, and provide that new 
document to the requester. 
 

	12.  With respect to the complainant’s request in paragraph 2d and 2e, above, it is 
found that the respondents did not enter into any contracts with any of the doctors and 
therefore the respondents do not maintain documents which would reflect any contractual 
agreements.  It is further found that the FOI Act does not require an agency to answer 
questions.
 

	13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-19(a) and 1-
15(a), G.S., by failing to comply with the complainant’s request more fully described in 
paragraph 2, above.
 

	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 special meeting of 
November 18, 1998.

_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:

Mohamed A. Antar
152 Lebanon Road
Bethany, CT 06524-3009

Mary Jo Kramer, 
Superintendent, Milford 
Public Schools; Francine M.
Farber, Director of Educational 
Services, Board of Education, 
Milford Public Schools; and 
Jan Fugal, Chairman, Board of
Education, Milford Public Schools
c/o Atty. Warren L. Holcomb
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460

__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-115FD/mrb11231998