FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Melinda S. Kelly,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2000-594

Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield
Public Schools; and Chairperson, Board
of Education, Brookfield Public Schools,

 

 

Respondent

 March 14, 2001

 

 

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 8, 2000, 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.

 

            2.  It is found that, by letter dated September 12, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent superintendent make available “any and all invoices and payments made to Robert Bertolette, Applied Environmental Control [hereinafter “AEC”] and James Pero, and ECG for the last ten years.” 

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated September 28, 2000, the respondent superintendent informed the complainant that he was in the process of collecting records related to AEC, James Pero, and ECG, in response to the request described in paragraph 2, above.   

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated October 7, 2000, the complainant reminded the respondent superintendent that her September 12, 2000, request included records related to Robert Bertolette.  It is further found that, by such letter the complainant also reminded the respondent superintendent that she had made previous requests, dated June 20th, July 19th, July 31st, September 10th, and September 12th, to inspect originals of “any and all contracts, invoices, written agreements or proposals, checks written by the Brookfield board of education, in which Brookfield has entered into with Mr. Robert Bertolette, [AEC], and or Mr. James Pero, and ECG for the last ten years.” 

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated October 10, 2000, the complainant informed the respondent chairperson of the requests described in paragraph 4, above, and the response described in paragraph 3, above.  It is further found that, by such letter, the complainant also informed the respondent chairperson that she wished records related to Robert Bertolette, as well as the other requested records referenced by the respondent superintendent in the response described in paragraph 3, above.  

 

            6.  It is found that, by letter dated October 13, 2000, the respondent superintendent informed the complainant that records related to fiscal years 1995-1996 to the present are stored electronically, that records related to fiscal years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 are maintained in paper form, so that more time would be needed to compile any such records, and that records related to prior years had been destroyed following receipt of a destruction authorization from the state in 1998.  It is further found that, by such letter, the respondent superintendent informed the complainant that no electronic records for James Pero or ECG existed, and that eight electronic records of payments to Robert Bertolette, dba AEC, existed, including purchase order numbers, account code, invoice date, payment date and amount, and check number.  It is also found that, by such letter, the respondent superintendent also informed the complainant that such records were available for her review and that copies were available upon payment for such copies.   

 

7.  By letter of complaint dated October 28, 2000, and filed with the Commission on November 1, 2000, the complainant alleged that she made written requests to the respondents in September, 2000 for “any and all contracts, invoices, written agreements or proposals, checks written by the Brookfield board of education, in which Brookfield has entered into with Mr. Robert Bertolette, [AEC], or Mr. James Piro (sic), dba ‘ECG’ for the past ten years.”  By such letter, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to provide her with copies of such records. 

 

8.  It is found that the complainant did not submit a September 10, 2000, request to the respondents, as referenced in her October 7, 2000 letter described in paragraph 4, above.  It is further found that the complainant’s September 12, 2000, request was for invoices and payments, as described in paragraph 2, above, and that such request was made to the respondent superintendent, and not to the respondent chairperson.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the complaint in this matter is limited to the allegation that the respondent superintendent failed to comply with the September 12, 2000 records request [hereinafter “requested records”]. 

 

9.   Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: 

 

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…

 

10.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., further provides in relevant part:  “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record…”  

 

11.  It is concluded that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

12.  It is found that, by letter dated November 14, 2000, the respondent superintendent informed the complainant that six paper invoices from AEC and one paper invoice from ECG had been located, that such records were available for the complainant’s review, that copies of same would be provided for a fee of twenty-five cents per page, and that no other invoices or payments were found, after completing a review of the last ten years’ worth of records.  It is also found that, by such letter, the respondent superintendent informed the complainant that the complaint described in paragraph 7, above, expanded the scope of the September request at issue, but that nevertheless, the respondent superintendent had no records of contracts, written agreements between the board of education and the individuals or firms at issue, and no proposals from such individuals and firms.  Further, it is found that, by such letter, the respondents informed the complainant that checks are not maintained in the offices of the respondent superintendent, but that the Town of Brookfield Finance Department maintains such records. 

 

13.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the records provided as described in paragraphs 6 and 12, above, were difficult to interpret and that they did not contain sufficient information.  However, it is concluded that the respondents are not required to correct or modify such records under the FOI Act; they are simply required to produce the existing requested records that they maintain.

 

14.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant also contended that the respondents should have had invoices or payment records for other work performed by to Robert Bertolette, AEC, James Pero, and ECG.  However, it is found that the respondents have provided the complainant with all responsive records that they keep or maintain.

 

15.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant also contended that the respondents did not comply with state records retention guidelines in allegedly destroying requested records dated before the year 1993.  However, it is concluded that the issue of public records retention is properly within the purview of the State Public Records Administrator.  It is also found that responsive records dated before the year 1993 have been destroyed.

 

16.  It is found that the respondent superintendent made a thorough search of paper and electronic records, including a review of 200 boxes in records storage, and that such search took approximately twenty-five hours.  It is further found that such efforts amounted to approximately three hours per week over an eight-week period.  Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the respondent superintendent’s provision of the requested records was prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

17.  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 March 14, 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:

 

Melinda S. Kelly

Two Alexander Drive

Brookfield, CT 06804

 

Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public

Schools; and Chairperson, Board of Education,

Brookfield Public Schools

c/o Nicole A. Bernabo, Esq.

Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, LLC

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

FIC/2000-594/FD/paj/03/15/2001