|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Gus
Montanaro and Friends
of Public Access, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-186 |
|
Advisory Council for Cable
Television, Area II, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September
22, 1999 |
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on July 14, 1999, 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 §1-200(a), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
2.
It
is found that on March 3, 1999, the complainant submitted a written request to
the respondent for the following:
a.
a
list of active members of the respondent council at the time of the meeting
during which the council voted to support Soundview Community Media;
b.
a
list of the members in attendance at the above-mentioned meeting and how they
voted on the Soundview Community Media issue;
c.
who
made the motion to support Soundview Community Media and who seconded that
motion;
d.
and
who made the motion to spend $1,333.00 on the lawyers, Copin and Lind, who
seconded and who supported that motion.
3.
By
letter dated April 15, 1999 and filed on April 21, 1999, the complainants
appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom
of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to their March 3, 1999
request.
4.
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 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 1-212.
5.
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.
6.
To
the extent records responsive to the complainants’ request described in
paragraphs 2a and 2b, above, exist, such records are public records within the
meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
7.
It
is found that the respondent provided the complainants with copies of the
requested records, as described in paragraph 2a and 2b, as well as other
records, at the respondent’s regular meeting in May, 1999.
8.
It
is found that many of the other records provided to the complainants were not
maintained by the respondent and had to be searched for, and obtained from
other sources. However, it is further
found that the records requested in paragraphs 2a and 2b, above, were readily
available from the respondent’s files and that the respondent never contacted
the complainants to inform them of the action it was taking to comply with his
request.
9.
It
is therefore found that the respondent failed to promptly provide the
complainants with the records requested in paragraphs 2a and 2b, above; and it
is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
[§§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S.,
respectively].
10. With respect to the
complainants’ request described in paragraphs 2c and 2d, it is found that such
requests constitute questions, rather than requests for access to public
records.
11. It is found that nothing in
the FOI Act requires a public agency to answer questions.
12. It is further found,
however, that although the respondent was under no obligation to answer the
complainant’s questions or to obtain records maintained by other sources, the
respondent went to great lengths to collect the records and to provide the data
that would put the information the complainants were seeking in the context
that would give them an accurate record of what transpired with respect to the
Soundview Community Media issue.
13. It is therefore concluded
that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
[§§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S.,
respectively] with respect to paragraphs 2c and 2d, above.
On the basis of the record
concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order is recommended by the
Commission.
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 and
Friends
of Public Access
PO
Box 9284
Bridgeport,
CT 06601
Advisory Council for
Cable Television, Area II
c/o
Howard Jacobson
666
Sturges Highway
Westport,
CT 06880
__________________________
Melanie
R. Balfour
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-186FD/mrb/09221999