FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by
|
FINAL DECISION
|
|
Thedress Campbell, |
|
|
|
Complainant
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket #FIC 2000-547
|
|
City
Manager, City of Hartford, |
|
|
|
Respondent
|
March 28, 2001
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 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 September 22, 2000, the complainant requested that the
respondent provide him with copies of the following records regarding the
respondent’s affirmative action committee [hereinafter “the committee”]:
a. the
list of questions, application forms and other documents each committee
member was required to complete before being named to the committee;
b. the
list of members appointed without benefit of an application;
c. the
investigative questions passed to each committee member to assure the
applicant supported the mission of the committee;
d. the
committee mission statement;
e. a
list of all prior cases heard by the committee;
f. the
transcripts, minutes, notes, memos or any other physical records of any
hearings the committee has conducted, along with a list of committee
members who participated;
g. a
list of all racial discrimination cases previously heard by the
committee;
h. the
initiating document which authorized the establishment of the committee;
i. a
list of requirements for persons to be named to said committee;
j. the
documents which establishes the power and authority of the committee.
3. By letter dated
and filed October 2, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission,
alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter
“FOI”] Act by failing to supply him with copies of the records described
in paragraph 2, above.
4. 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.
5. 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….”
6. It is found that,
to the extent that they exist, the requested records, as described in
paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a),
G.S.
7. It is found that,
by letter dated October 12, 2000, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the
request described in paragraph 2, above, and informed the complainant of the
following regarding each portion of the request:
a. committee
members do not complete application forms;
b. committee
members are selected from a list of individuals; the respondent provided
a copy of such list;
c. there
are no investigative questions passed to each committee member to assure
the applicant supports the mission of the committee;
d. there
is no mission statement, however, the responsibilities of the members
were listed in an attached affirmative action plan;
e. a
list of both prior cases heard by the committee;
f. a
list of committee members who participated in prior cases;
g. a
list of all racial discrimination cases previously heard by the
committee;
h. the
city’s affirmative action plan, which is the initiating document which
authorized the establishment of the committee;
i. there
are no special requirements for persons to be named to said committee,
however all members must attend an equal opportunity/affirmative action
workshop;
j. the
affirmative action plan, which establishes the power and authority of
the committee.
8. It is
found that the FOI Act does not require that a public agency create a
document in order to comply with an individual’s request for records, nor
does the FOI Act require that a public agency answer the questions of
individuals seeking information. The
FOI Act simply requires the disclosure of all existing records.
9.
It is found that the respondent does not maintain or keep on file
records responsive to the request as described in paragraph 2.a, 2.c, and 2.i,
above. Accordingly, it is
concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to
provide copies of such records to the complainant.
10. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is
found that the respondent promptly provided the complainant with copies of all
records which she maintains or keeps on file that are responsive to the
request as described in paragraph 2.b, 2.d, 2.e, 2.g, 2.h, and 2.j, above.
It is further found that the respondent promptly provided the
complainant with the requested list as described in paragraph 2.f, above.
Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the
FOI Act with respect to such records, as alleged in the complaint.
11. However, it is also found that the respondent failed to make
a thorough search for all existing records that are responsive to the request
for transcripts, minutes, notes, memos or any other physical records of any
hearings the committee has conducted, as described in paragraph 2.f, above.
Specifically, it is further found that the respondent failed to contact
the committees who conducted such hearings to ascertain whether any such
responsive records exist. Accordingly,
it is concluded that the respondent violated failing to provide the
complainant with copies of any such existing records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the
basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent
shall forthwith make a thorough search for the requested transcripts, minutes,
notes, memos or any other physical records of any hearings the committee has
conducted, as described in paragraph 2.f of the findings, above. Such search shall include contacting the committees who
conducted such hearings.
2. In the event the
respondent locates the records described in paragraph 1 of the order, she
shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of such records, at no
cost.
3. In the event the respondent does not locate records
described in paragraph 1 of the order, she shall forthwith provide the
complainant with an affidavit attesting that, upon a complete and thorough
search of the committees’ records, no records responsive to his request were
located. Moreover, in such event,
and in accordance with §§1-225(a),
G.S., requiring minutes of meetings, the respondent shall forthwith charge the
committees described in paragraph 1 of the order with preparing minutes of
such hearings to the best of their ability, and, thereafter, she shall
forthwith provide such minutes to the complainant, at no cost.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of March 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:
Thedress Campbell
265 Poquonock Avenue
Windsor, CT 06095
City
Manager, City of Hartford
c/o
Ivan A. Ramos, Esq.
Assistant
Corporation Counsel
550
Main Street
Hartford,
CT 06103
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-547/FD/paj/03/30/2001