FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Matthew
Preston and Bridgeport |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-029 |
|
|
State
of Connecticut, Judicial |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 11, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on February 21, 2001, at which time the complainants 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. By letter dated November 2, 2000 to the respondent, the complainants made a request for information related to the proposed criminal courthouse for the City of Bridgeport including “access to and copies of all written and/or electronic communications, and records of communications by and with members and staff of the Judicial Branch, which took place after January 1, 2000 and that concern the requirements or design for the proposed courthouse or its site, the acquisition of a site, [and] the timing or the financing for the project” (hereinafter “requested records”).
3. It is found that by letter dated November 6, 2000 the respondent responded to the complainants informing them that while there was no objection to providing the requested records, §4b-27, G.S., prohibits the discussion of state realty needs or interests “without the authorization and supervision of the Commissioner of Public Works” and that their request was forwarded to the Commissioner of Public Works for his authorization to disclose the requested records.
4. By letter dated November 13, 2000 the respondent informed the complainants that the Commissioner of Public Works denied the respondent’s request for authorization to disclose the requested records but advised that once the site for the courthouse was selected and an agreement for its purchase signed, the records would be made public.
5. By letter dated December 13, 2000 to the respondent, the complainants again submitted their request to the respondent and were informed again by the respondent, by letter dated December 15, 2000, that because the Commissioner of the Department of Public Works had not given the respondent authorization to disclose the requested records, their request was denied.
6. By letter dated January 16, 2001 and filed on January 17, 2001, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their request.
7. 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 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., 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 . . . .”
9. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. Section 4b-27, G.S., entitled “Disclosure of state realty needs. Unauthorized disclosure class A misdemeanor”, provides in relevant part that:
no person affiliated with any requesting agency shall discuss outside of that agency its real estate needs or interests prior to formal notification to the commissioner, and in no event without the authorization and supervision of the Commissioner of Public Works, which authorization shall be filed with the review board; nor shall anyone with knowledge of said needs gained as a result of his employment by the state disclose any information regarding state real estate needs to anyone except as authorized by the commissioner. Anyone who discloses any such information without authority by the commissioner before said information is made public by the commissioner shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
11. It is found that the requested records contain, or pertain to, information regarding the respondent’s real estate needs within the meaning of §4b-27, G.S.
12. It is found that pursuant to §4b-27, G.S., the respondent notified the Commissioner of Public Works of the complainants’ request and sought authorization to disclose the requested records to them.
13. It is found that the Commissioner of Public Works denied the respondent’s request for authorization to disclose the requested records.
14. It is concluded therefore that pursuant to §4b-27, G.S., the requested records can not be disclosed by the respondent and that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a), or 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to comply with the complainants’ request.
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 July 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:
Matthew Preston and Bridgeport Downtown
Preservation Task Force
955 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 1214
Bridgeport, CT 06607
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-029/FD/paj/07/16/2001