FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Leo F. Ostar, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-622 |
|
|
Interim
Superintendent, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
April 11, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on February 22, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondent
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 respondent is a
public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
It is found that, by
letter dated October 26, 2000, the complainant asked that the respondent “make
available present student utilization of space at Long Meadow, the two middle
schools and the high school through daily period-by-period occupancy of all
areas during a full program cycle. Please include all student-utilized spaces with general and
specialized class rooms as the base. In
addition, detail data for resource rooms and support facilities when these are
integral to the educational experiences of students as well as hallways,
closets, music rooms where students may have to wear ear plugs and stages used
for educational purposes. Each
area through the cycle would display unique identification-number of students,
grade level, etc.”
3.
It is found that, by
letter dated October 28, 2000, the respondent provided the complainant with an
October 4, 2000 memorandum written by a school consultant regarding the
capacity of Region 15 Schools, including an addendum showing the capacity of
Region 15’s schools by three different methods, the capacity changes due to
grade configuration, and the school capacities after the planned additions and
renovations, and a second addendum consisting of a chart of room utilization
for the year 2000-2001.
4.
It is found that, by
letter dated November 6, 2000, the complainant informed the respondent that he
had failed to provide the complainant with the number of students in all
student occupied spaces throughout the full educational cycle.
5.
It is found that, by
letter dated November 8, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that
the only other notes or calculations regarding capacity which he maintained
were those provided in an attached September 24, 2000, letter that he wrote to
a school consultant. It is also
found that, by such letter, the respondent informed the complainant that he
had ordered the preparation of a room utilization report for the high school
that would include class size. Further,
the respondent informed the complainant that he did not maintain such reports
for schools other than the high school.
6.
By letter dated
November 16, 2000, and filed with the Commission on November 17, 2000, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated
the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with
access to all of the records requested, as described in paragraph 2, above.
As relief, the complainant asked that the Commission impose a civil
penalty of $1.00 against the respondent; that the respondent make available
the requested records in a format designed by the complainant on a public
television channel, on the website of Region 15, and at a public presentation
before the board of education; and that a proposed building project referendum
be postponed for two weeks.
7.
By letter dated
November 24, 2000, the complainant amended his complaint, informing the
Commission that had received the report described in paragraph 5, above, but
that he had not received similar reports for the elementary school and the
middle schools.
8.
It is found that, by
letter dated November 29, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that
he been provided access to all existing requested records.
9.
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….”
10.
It is found that the
respondent has provided the complainant with access to all records which he
maintains or keeps on file that are responsive to the request described in
paragraph 2, above. It is also
found that the FOI Act does not require a public agency to create a document
in order to comply with an individual’s request for records, nor does the
FOI Act require a public agency to answer the questions of individuals seeking
information. The FOI Act simply
requires the disclosure of all existing records.
11.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., 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 April 11, 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:
Leo F. Ostar
46 Central Road
Middlebury, CT 06762
Interim Superintendent of Schools
Board of Education, Regional District 15
c/o Brian Clemow, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06119
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-622/FD/paj/04/16/2001