FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
JoAnne Bauer, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-502 |
|
|
James
Abromaitis, Commissioner, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 28, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 17, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents
appeared, 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.
2. It is found that, by letter
dated July 21, 2000 and sent by fax, the complainant requested that the
respondents provide her with all relevant records related to the Colonial
Theater, the Colonial Theater Renaissance Corporation and FARE [hereinafter
“the file”].
3. It is found that, on August
28, 2000, the complainant attended a meeting with the respondent director and
five other staff members of the respondent department [hereinafter “DECD”],
including DECD’s freedom of information officer [hereinafter “FOI officer”].
It is also found that the issue of the Colonial Theater was discussed
at such meeting with the complainant. It
is further found that the complainant requested access to the complete file
during such meeting, but was denied access at that time, as the file was not
complete since various DECD staff members were working on records normally
contained in the file and that such records were located throughout the DECD
offices.
4. It is found that, at the
meeting described in paragraph 3, above, the complainant hand-delivered a
letter, dated August 28, 2000, which again asked for the file.
It is also found that the FOI officer received such letter, verbally
acknowledged such receipt to the complainant, and informed the complainant
that the completed file would be provided for her inspection as soon as
possible.
5. It is found that, on Sunday,
September 3, 2000, the complainant faxed a letter to the respondents again
asking for access to the file. The
Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that Monday, September 4,
2000, was Labor Day.
6. It is found that, by letter
dated September 6, 2000, the FOI officer acknowledged receipt of the request
described in paragraph 5, above, offered the complainant access to the file,
and asked the complainant to contact him to arrange a time for such
inspection. It is further found
that the complainant received such letter on or about September 8, 2000.
7. It is found that, by letter
dated September 5, 2000, faxed to the Commission on September 10, 2000, and
filed with the Commission on September 11, 2000, the complainant alleged that
the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”]
Act by failing to promptly provide her with the file as requested on three
occasions, and by failing to acknowledge such requests.
The complainant asked that the Commission impose civil penalties in
this matter. It is further found
that, on September 15, 2000, the complainant filed copies of the three request
letters described in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5, above.
8. Section 1-210(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.
9. Section 1-212(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. The fee for any copy provided in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act: (1) By an executive, administrative or legislative office of the state, a state agency or a department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state, including a committee of, or created by, such an office, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official, and also including any judicial office, official or body or committee thereof but only in respect to its or their administrative functions, shall not exceed twenty-five cents per page….
10.
It is found that, contrary to the allegation by the complainant made
with respect to the respondents’ failure to acknowledge the requests
described in paragraphs 4 and 5, above, the respondents acknowledged receipt
of such requests, as described in paragraphs 4 and 6, above.
11. It is found that,
following the complainant’s receipt of the letter described in paragraph 6,
above, the complainant and the FOI officer arranged a mutually convenient time
on September 14, 2000, for the complainant’s review of the entire file.
It is further found that the file is voluminous, that the complainant
reviewed it, tagged hundreds of certain records she wished copied, and
received such copies after paying for them.
12. At the hearing in this
matter, the complainant contended that certain invoices and copies of her
letters to the DECD were not included in the file.
It is found, however, that the complainant’s letters are kept in a
separate file maintained by the FOI officer.
It is further found that all of the invoices connected with the
Colonial Theater were contained in the file and were provided for the
complainant’s review, as described in paragraph 11, above.
At the hearing in this matter, the respondents indicated that the
complainant’s letters to the DECD are available for her review and agreed to
again search their files to ensure that all requested invoices have been
provided to the complainant.
13. It is concluded that, based
upon the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents did not violate
the FOI Act with respect to the requests described in paragraphs 4 and 5,
above, as alleged in the complaint.
14. With respect to the request
described in paragraph 2, above, it is found that the respondents did not
receive such request from the complainant.
Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the
FOI Act with respect to such request.
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.
2. The Commission notes that the complaint in this matter was filed after the complainant received notice that the respondents would make the file available, and that the complainant filed an addendum to her complaint the day after she reviewed such file. The complainant is advised that the Commission seeks to resolve undisputed matters without the need for costly and time-consuming administrative hearings and that this complaint might well have been resolved through the Commission’s ombudsman process.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 28, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
JoAnne Bauer
25 North Beacon Street
Hartford, CT 06105
James
Abromaitis, Commissioner,
State
of Connecticut, Department of
Economic
and Community Development;
Ginne-Rae
LeGree, Community Development
Director,
State of Connecticut, Department of
Economic
and Community Development, Urban
Revitalization
and Investment Division; and
State
of Connecticut, Department of
Economic
and Community Development
c/o Shelagh P. McClure, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street, PO Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-502/FD/paj/03/07/2001