|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Gus
Montanaro, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-125 |
|
State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Utility Control, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September
22, 1999 |
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on June 16, 1999, 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 §1-200(1), G.S. [§1-18a(1), G.S.].
2.
It
is found that on February 17, 1999, the complainant made an oral request to the
respondent for copies of a 31 page document entitled “The Operating and
Financial Plan for the Implementation for Public, Educational and Government
Access in Franchise Area #2, Connecticut” and was told by a member of the
respondent’s staff that all the copy machines were out of order and that a copy
could not be made at that time.
3.
It
is found that on February 19, 1999, the complainant receive only 19 pages of
the requested record described in paragraph 2, above.
4.
By
letter dated March 10, 1999 and filed on March 16, 1999, the complainant
appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom
of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with a copy of the
requested record at the time of his request on February 17, 1999 and failing to
provide him with the entire record as requested on February 19, 1999.
5.
Section
1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in
relevant part that:
[e]xcept as otherwise
provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on
file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law
or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall
have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the
provisions of section 1-15.
6.
Section
1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §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.”
7.
It
is found that the requested record is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
8.
It
is found that on the date the complainant made his oral request for the record
described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent’s large capacity copying
machines were out of order and the only operating copying machine was a manual
machine which required the operator to insert each page of a record one-by-one
for photocopying.
9.
Notwithstanding
the finding in paragraph 2, above, it is further found that because the
requested record was quite long and because of the length of time it would have
taken to copy the record, the respondent offered to provide the complainant
with a copy of the record at a later date and the complainant accepted that
offer.
10. It is therefore concluded
that the respondent did not violate the promptness provisions of §1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.] on February
17, 1999, at the time of the complainant’s oral request on that date.
11. With respect to the
complainant’s allegations regarding the respondent’s failure to provide him
with a complete copy of the requested record, it is found that on February 19,
1999, the complainant received a copy of the requested record but found that
the portions entitled “Budget” and “Budget Narrative” were not included.
12. It is found that although
the complainant believed that the record he received on February 19, 1999
constituted incomplete compliance with his February 17, 1999 request, the
record he received on February 19, 1999 had been provided in response to a previous request the complainant made
to another member of the respondent’s staff.
13. It is further found however,
that the complainant did not receive a complete copy of the requested record in
compliance with his February 17, 1999 request until April 12, 1999 - seven
weeks after his request. It is
therefore found that the respondent failed to promptly comply with the
complainant’s February 17, 1999 request.
14. It is therefore concluded
that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.].
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1.
Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions
of §1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.].
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
September
22, 1999.
_________________________
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:
Gus
Montanaro
c/o
Friends of Public Access
PO
Box 9284
Bridgeport,
CT 06601
State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Utility
Control
c/o
Atty. Robert S. Golden, Jr.
Assistant
Attorney General
10
Franklin Square
New
Britain, CT 06051-2605
__________________________
Melanie
R. Balfour
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-125FD/mrb/09221999