FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
| Lorraine Wilmot and Jim Coll, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC
1999-507 |
|
H.
Wayne Carver, II, Chief Medical |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
April 26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 18, 2000, 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(1),
G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1),
G.S.].
2.
It is found that on
or about March 31, 1999, complainant Wilmot made a request for, and received
from the respondent, copies of the minutes of the Commission on Medicolegal
Investigations’ (hereinafter “COMLI”) January 29, 1999 and March 26,
1999, meetings and a copy of the audiotape recording of the COMLI’s March
26, 1999 meeting for which she was charged $4.50.
3.
By letter dated May
19, 1999, complainant Wilmot requested from the respondent copies of the
audiotape recordings and the minutes of the COMLI’s meetings on May 21,
1999, September 24, 1999, and November 19, 1999.
Complainant Wilmot also requested that the respondent send her copies
of the audiotape recordings and minutes of any other COMLI meetings for 1999,
whether scheduled or unscheduled.
4.
By letter dated May
24, 1999, the respondent responded to Mrs. Wilmot’s May 19, 1999, request
informing her that her letter was accepted as a request for copies of the
audiotape recordings and minutes of the May 21, 1999 meeting of the COMLI’s
and that because the agency did not have the equipment to duplicate
audiotapes, an outside service had to be obtained and that Mrs. Wilmot would
be charged for the service.
5.
By letter dated June
1, 1999, the respondent provided Mrs. Wilmot with a copy of the minutes of the
COMLI’s May 21, 1999, meeting, and informed her that they were unable to
provide a copy of the audiotape recording of that meeting because there had
been a problem with the settings on the recorder during the meeting and the
meeting was not recorded.
6.
By letter dated July
19, 1999, Mrs. Wilmot made a request for a copy of the audiotape recording and
minutes of all future COMLI meetings that are held in 1999, whether scheduled
or unscheduled.
7.
By letter dated
August 6, 1999, the respondent replied to Mrs. Wilmot’s request by informing
her that a request for each meeting must be issued separately because blanket
requests could not be accepted; and that her July 19, 1999 letter would be
treated as a request for a copy of the minutes and audiotape recording of the
COMLI’s September 24, 1999, meeting.
8.
It is found that on a
date subsequent to September 24, 1999, but prior to October 25, 1999, the
respondent provided Mrs. Wilmot with a bill in the amount of $40.99 for a copy
of the minutes and audiotape recording of COMLI’s September 24, 1999
meeting.
9.
By letter dated
October 25, 1999 and filed on October 29, 1999, the complainants appealed to
this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by:
a.
overcharging Mrs.
Wilmot for a copy of the audiotape recording of COMLI’s September 24, 1999,
meeting;
b.
failing to inform the
complainants of the retention schedule of the audiotape recordings of the
COMLI’s meetings; and
c.
falsely justifying
their use of a company that charged $39.99 for duplicating services instead of
the company that only charged $4.50 for the same service.
The complainants also requested the imposition of
civil penalties.
10. 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 1-212.
Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the
provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights
granted by this subsection shall be void.
11. 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 . . .”
12.
It is found that the
requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
13.
At the hearing on
this matter, the respondent argued that with respect to the complainant’s
request for copies of the minutes and audiotape recording of the COMLI’s
September 24, 1999, meeting, Mrs. Wilmot made a request for records that, at
the time of their request, did not exist and that the respondent is not
obligated to comply with such a request.
14.
Notwithstanding the
foregoing argument, the respondent did make a copy of the audiotape recording
and the minutes of the September 24, 1999, and after consultation with
counsel, offered to provide the complainants with the records free of charge
prior to and at the hearing on this matter which records were never accepted
by the complainants. Furthermore,
the respondent purchased duplicating equipment in order to provide copies of
the audiotape recordings of COMLI meetings expeditiously and at a much lower
cost to the public.
15.
It is found that at
the time of Mrs. Wilmot’s requests, as described in paragraphs 3 and 6, the
September 24, 1999 meeting had not taken place and therefore neither minutes
nor an audiotape recording existed.
16.
It is found that Mrs.
Wilmot did not make any other requests for a copy of the minutes or the audio
tape recording of COMLI’s September 24, 1999, meeting.
17.
It is found that the
respondent was not required to comply with a request for records that did not
exist at the time of the request.
18.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act
with respect to the complainants’ allegation described in paragraph 9a,
above.
19.
With respect to the
complainants’ allegation found in paragraph 9b, above, it is found that the
complainant, Mr. Coll, via the telephone, made a request for information in
the form of a question and did not request a record.
20.
It is found that the
Freedom of Information Act does not require a public agency to answer
questions and further, it is found that there is no evidence in the record
that the respondent maintains a record responsive to the Mr. Coll’s
question.
21.
Therefore it is
concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §1-210(a),
G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], with respect to Mr.Coll’s question
described in paragraph 9b, above.
22.
With respect to the
complainants’ allegation found in paragraph 9c, above, it is found that the
complainants have not alleged a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
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
April 26, 2000.
_________________________
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:
Lorraine Wilmot and Jim Coll
H.
Wayne Carver, II, Chief Medical Examiner, State of Connecticut, Office of the
Chief Medical Examiner
c/o Atty. Patrick B. Kwanashie
Assistant Attorney General
PO Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-507FD/mrb/05/01/00