|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the
Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Richard
L. Sherman and The Coalition |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-183 |
|
Commissioner, State Of Connecticut, Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
October
27, 1999 |
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 2, 1999 at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 1999-184, Ainslie Gilligan and The Coalition to Save Horsebarn Hill v. Assistant Executive Secretary, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Board of Trustees; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Board of Trustees, was consolidated with the above-captioned matter for purpose of hearing.
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 §1-200(1), G.S., (formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.).
2. It is found that on or about April 6, 1999, state senator Edith Prague, acting at the request of complainant Sherman, requested that the respondents provide her with access to the contract or draft contract governing the construction and operation of the Center for Excellence in Vaccine Research at Storrs, Connecticut (hereinafter “requested records”).
3. It is found that on or about April 6, 1999, the respondents denied the request for the draft and indicated that the contract was not yet signed and therefore, not available.
4. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated and filed on April 16, 1999, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them a copy of the requested record.
5. It is found that by letter dated May 24, 1999, the complainants, through counsel, made a more extensive records request to the president of the University of Connecticut, this time requesting the records described in paragraph 2, above, in addition to additional records concerning the Center for Excellence in Vaccine Research. It is concluded that because the May 24, 1999 request postdates the complainants’ appeal filed April 16, 1999, such request is not properly within the scope of this appeal and will therefore, not be addressed herein.
6. With respect to the records request as described in paragraph 2, above, it is found that the respondents maintain working drafts of agreements (hereinafter “draft agreements”) and such draft agreements are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.).
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S., (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.), provides in relevant part that:
Except 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 a 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. [Emphasis added.]
8. Section 1-210(b)(1), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(1), G.S.) permits an agency to withhold from disclosure “[P]reliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
9. Section 1-210(c)(1), G.S., (formerly §1-19(c)(1), G.S.) further provides that notwithstanding the provisions of §1-210(b)(1), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(1), G.S.), disclosure shall be required of:
“[I]nteragency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory opinions, recommendations or any report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated, except disclosure shall not be required of a preliminary draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member of the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of such agency.”
10. It is found that the draft agreements maintained by the respondents constitute “preliminary drafts” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(1), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(1), G.S.).
11. It is also found that the respondents have determined that the public interest in withholding such draft agreements clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(1), G.S., (formerly §1-19(b)(1), G.S.).
12. It is further found that the draft agreements are still being revised by, and exchanged between, counsel for Pfizer, Inc. and counsel for the respondent, Halloran and Sage. It is also found that such draft agreements have not been submitted to or discussed among the members of the agency, within the meaning of §1-210(c)(1), G.S., (formerly §1-19(c)(1), G.S.).
13. Consequently, it is concluded that the requested draft agreements are permissively exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(1) and 1-210(c)(1), G.S., (formerly §§1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(c)(1), G.S., respectively).
14. It is therefore, concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., (formerly §1-19(a), G.S.) when they failed to provide the complainants with the requested draft agreements.
15. In light of the conclusion reached in paragraph 13, above, it is not necessary to address the respondents’ further claim of exemption.
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 regular meeting of
October 27, 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:
Richard L. Sherman and The Coalition
to Save Horsebarn Hill
c/o Nancy Burton, Esq.
147 Cross Highway
Redding Ridge, CT 06876
Assistant Attorney General, State of
Connecticut, University of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General; and State
of Connecticut, University of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
c/o William N. Kleinman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
UConn Health Center
263 Farmington Ave., Room LM043
Farmington, CT 06030-3803
and
Paul S. McCarthy, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
University of Connecticut
Box U-177
605 Gilbert Road
Storrs, CT 06269-1177
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-183/FD/mes/1102999