|
FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION |
|||
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Steven Edelman, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC
1999-319 |
|
Christopher Arciero, Sergeant, State |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December 8, 1999 |
|
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 9, 1999 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 §1-200(1),
G.S., (formerly (§1-18a(1),
G.S.).
2.
It is found that by letter dated May 29, 1999, the complainant
requested that the respondent sergeant provide him with access to inspect:
all
records, documents, laws, treatises, opinions, and similar instruments
ascribing a specific legal classification to the type of proceeding or session
that the State of Connecticut Building Codes and Standards Committee convenes
under section 29-252(d) CGS and 29-262(d), CGS. Legal classification means a classification identified in
Article II U.S. Constitution.
3.
It is found that the respondent sergeant by letter dated June 4, 1999,
responded to the complainant’s request and provided him with copies of
certain records.
4.
It is found that by letter dated June 10, 1999, the complainant renewed
his request to the respondent sergeant, indicating that the records provided
and described in paragraph 3 above, were not responsive to his request.
5.
It is found that by letter dated June 16, 1999, the respondent sergeant
informed the complainant that “we do not have any additional documents
responsive to your request.”
6.
The complainant then, by letter dated July 9, 1999, appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by denying him access to inspect the requested records.
The complainant requested that civil penalties be imposed upon the
respondents.
7.
It is found that the respondents have made a good faith effort to
identify, locate and retrieve identifiable records that are responsive to the
complainant’s request and the complainant has been given access to those
records. It is found that the
respondents are unable to identify any additional records, and have invited
the complainant to inspect the records of the state Building Codes and
Standards Committee.
8.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that
the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.
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
December 8, 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:
Steven Edelman
Frog Pond
Windham Center, CT 06280
Christopher Arciero, Sergeant, State of
Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department
of Public Safety
c/o Atty. Robert B. Fiske III
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT
06105
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-319/FD/mrb/
1/10/2000