FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Rickey Reed, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-172 |
|
|
James F. Sullivan, Commissioner, State |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
August 23, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 27, 2000, 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.
2. It is found that by letter dated March 2, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with seven categories of information, including the race, gender, total number of applications received, total number of female and minority applicants, etcetera, for the position of Transportation Manager of Contracts in the Division of Contract Administration, Department of Transportation (“DOT”). The March 2, 2000 letter also requested answers to four questions, designated questions 1 through 4.
3. It is found that by letter dated March 7, 2000, the personnel administrator of the DOT acknowledged receipt of the March 2, 2000 request, and informed the complainant that it was being reviewed, and that he would receive a response in the near future.
4. By letter dated and filed on April 10, 2000, and supplemented by letter dated April 15, 2000 and filed on April 18, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the FOI Act by denying him access to the information requested in the March 2, 2000 request.
5. At the hearing on this matter, the parties agreed that the issues to be addressed by the Commission in connection with this complaint are :1) the timeliness of the respondent’s provision of access to records in response to the complainant’s March 2, 2000 request for seven items of information, and 2) the failure of the respondent to provide the complainant with answers to the questions he asked in the March 2, 2000 request.
6. It is found that the respondent personnel director notified the complainant by letter dated May 1, 2000 that, with respect to the seven items of information requested in the March 2, 2000 request, certain redacted copies of records were being made available for his review and that copies of such records would be provided at 25 cents per page, and further, that, with respect to the questions asked in the March 2, 2000 request “we do not have documents which are responsive to the questions which you asked.”
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides:
"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 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." [Emphasis added.]
8. It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with access to inspect or to receive a copy of the records “maintained or kept on file” by the respondent department, which records are the only ones existing in the respondent department’s files, that are responsive to the complainant’s March 2, 2000 request for the seven items of information. It is concluded that the records provided are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. It is also found that the respondent’s provision of access to such records on or about May 1, 2000, some seven weeks from the respondent’s initial March 7, 2000 response to the complainant that he would receive a response in the “near future”, was not “prompt” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provision of §1-210(a), G.S., when he failed to provide access to the records maintained promptly.
9. With respect to the questions asked by the complainant in the March 2, 2000 request, the respondent is not required under the FOI Act to create documents it does not already have, in order to answer the questions asked by the complainant. The FOI Act gives every person the right to request and access records that exist. It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint with respect to the questions asked by the complainant.
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 provision of §1-210(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 23, 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:
Rickey Reed
11 Whitward Place
Windsor, CT 06095-2335
James F. Sullivan, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation
c/o Atty. Anthony Jannotta
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street, PO Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-172FD/mrb/08/24/00