FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Robin Fugiero, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-634 |
|
|
Superintendent of Schools, Bridgeport |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
March 14, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 27, 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 November 3, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent superintendent provide her with copies of documentation of all city of Bridgeport policies regarding fire drill and emergency evacuation plans for handicapped students and individuals in Bridgeport public school buildings from September 1993 to the present date.
3. It is found that, by letter dated October 30, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent principal provide her with copies of documentation recording all fire drill and evacuation plans and all documented fire drill exercises and emergency evacuation exercises performed at the Blackham elementary school from September 1993 to the present date. It is further found that, by separate letter dated October 30, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent principal provide her with information regarding the specific date, and a copy of the documentation of inspection, of the Blackham elementary school by the respondent division during September 2000.
4. It is found that, by letter dated October 30, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent division provide her with copies of documentation recording all fire drill and evacuation plans and all documented fire drill exercises and emergency evacuation exercises performed at the Blackham elementary school from September 1993 to the present date.
5. It is found that, on November 3, 2000, the respondent division provided the complainant with copies of two pages of records headed “School Fire Drills.”
6. By letter dated November 28, 2000, and filed with the Commission on November 29, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to provide her with copies of the records described in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, above.
7. 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…
8. 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…”
9.
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.
10. In the complaint described in paragraph 6, above, the complainant alleged that the records provided by the respondent division, as described in paragraph 5, above, did not comprise all responsive records of the respondent division. However, it is found that such records were the only existing responsive records that the respondent division kept on file or maintained at the time of the request described in paragraph 4, above. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent division did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.
11. It is found that, under cover letter dated December 13, 2000, the respondent superintendent and the respondent principal provided the complainant with copies of the following records: a document headed “Fire Drill Procedures”; fire drill report forms for September 16, 1998, August 31, 2000, September 8, 2000, and September 20, 2000, indicating results of fire drills performed at Bridgeport public schools, including Blackham school; an August 20, 2000 memorandum from the Bridgeport school maintenance department to all school principals regarding fire drill reporting; maps indicating evacuation plans for the Blackham school; a “Fire Drills 1999-2000” report of all Bridgeport schools; “Fire Drill Reports” regarding fire drills between school years 1993 and 2000 for all Bridgeport Schools; a November 3, 2000 letter to the Bridgeport fire chief from the acting fire marshal of Bridgeport regarding Blackham elementary school and areas of refuge, with results of fire inspections done at Blackham School on August 31, 2000, and fire marshal violation reports, safety codes, and other applicable regulations; and the “Fire Safety and Prevention Manual for Connecticut Schools” published by the Connecticut department of education. It is further found that, by such letter, the respondent superintendent and the respondent principal informed the complainant of changes in fire drill evacuation procedures that have been implemented in Bridgeport as a result of the complainant’s concerns.
12. It is found that the records described in paragraph 11, above, comprise the only records that the respondent superintendent and the respondent principal keep on file or maintain that are responsive to the requests described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above.
13. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that certain of the records provided as described in paragraphs 5 and 11, above, are difficult to interpret and may contain erroneous 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. It is found that the provision of records as described in paragraph 11, above, over one month after the requests described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, was not prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. It is therefore concluded that the respondent superintendent and the respondent principal violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
15. On brief, the complainant requested the imposition of the maximum civil penalties against the respondents and their attorney.
16. It is found that the imposition of civil penalties is not warranted in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint against the respondent division is hereby dismissed.
2. Henceforth, the respondent superintendent and the respondent principal shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
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:
Robin Fugiero
470 Thorne Street
Bridgeport, CT 06606
Superintendent of Schools, Bridgeport
Public Schools; Principal, Blackham
School, Bridgeport Public Schools;
and Fire Marshal Division, Fire
Department, City of Bridgeport
c/o Arthur C. Laske III, Esq.
Office of the City Attorney
999 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604-4328
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-634/FD/paj/03/16/2001