FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Vinette Lewinson, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-041 |
|
|
Principal, Illing
Middle School, Board of |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
May 9, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 2, 2001, 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 January 11, 2001 the complainant requested that the respondent principal provide her with a copy of her daughter’s “completed application for Prince Tech” (hereinafter “requested record” or “application form”).
3. Having failed to receive a copy of the requested record, the complainant, by letter dated January 24, 2001, and filed on January 26, 2001, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent principal violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her a copy of the requested record.
4. It is found that prior to submitting her January 11, 2001 request, described in paragraph 2, above, and approximately during the first week of January 2001, the complainant requested that the school guidance counselor provide her with a copy of the application form. It is found that the guidance counselor and the respondent denied such request based on a policy of not providing a copy of application forms to any other person, except the school to which the applicant is applying for admission.
5. It is found that the respondent principal promptly informed the complainant’s husband of the reason for the denial, once in response to the complainant’s request during the first week of January, 2001, and again upon receipt of the complainant’s January 11, 2001 request.
6. Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records or files" as “any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.” [Emphasis added.]
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S., further provides in relevant part:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…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. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.
8. Section 1-212(a), G.S., further provides, in relevant part: “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”
9. It is found that the application form is recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, used and received by a public agency, within the meaning of § 1-200(5),G.S.
10. Consequently the application form is a “public record” within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S.
11. The respondent principal does not claim that the application form is exempt from disclosure pursuant to federal law or state statute. He contends that the application form is sent directly to the school receiving the application to protect the integrity of the form, and also that the application form contains the school’s “comment” section, which is kept confidential.
12. It is found that sometime after the receipt of the complainant’s requests, the application form was submitted to Prince Technical.
13. Section 1-210(a), G.S., requires that prompt access be given to a public record at the time of receipt of a request, unless of course such record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to federal law or state statute.
14. The respondent does not claim that any federal law or state statute precluded him from providing the complainant with a copy of the requested record at the time of her request. The respondent contends that a) he did not want to jeopardize the integrity of the application process and that is the reason the application form is always sent directly to the receiving school and b) he is generally concerned with possible negative reactions to a guidance counselors “frank” comments contained in the application form.
15. It is concluded that pursuant to §1-210(a), G.S., there being no exemption requiring nondisclosure, the respondent should have promptly provided a copy of the application form to the complainant at the time of her request.
16. Further, it is difficult to ascertain precisely in what way the application process would be jeopardized if the complainant were provided with a copy of the application form, while submitting the original to Prince Technical. In addition, in light of the respondent principal’s statement at the hearing in this matter that the application form at issue does not contain any negative comments about the complainant’s daughter it is unclear why there would be concerns about possible negative reactions to the guidance counselors “comments” contained on the form.
17. It is concluded that the respondent principal’s reasons for not providing the complainant with a copy of the application form (although well intentioned) are essentially “rules or regulations”, that conflict with the provisions of §1-210(a), G.S., and that diminish and curtail the rights granted by §1-210(a), G.S., and are therefore void, within the meaning of that provision.
18. It is further concluded that respondent violated the complainant’s rights when he failed to promptly provide her with a copy of the application form, which he had at the time of her requests.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the
basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondent shall obtain a copy of the application form from Prince Technical and provide it to the complainant.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of the FOI Act.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 9, 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:
Vinette Lewinson
400 North Main Street, Apt. 13
Manchester, CT 06040
Principal, Illing Middle School, Board of
Education, Manchester Public Schools
c/o Joan G. Libby, Esq.
Director of Human Resources
Manchester Public Schools
45 North School Street
Manchester, CT 06040
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-041/FD/paj/05/14/2001