FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
|
Bill O’Brien, Tax Assessor, City of New Haven; and Carl Ioveino, Manager of Information Office Technology, Information Technology Department, City of New Haven, |
|||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-048 | ||
|
Jerry R. Zinn, First Selectman, Town of Litchfield, |
|||
| Respondents | September 25, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 8, 2002, 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. By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on February 1, 2002, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him access to certain records, as described more specifically in paragraphs 3 and 4, below (hereinafter “requested records”). In his letter of complaint the complainant requested that the Commission impose civil penalties against the respondents.
3. It is found that by letter dated January 7, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent assessor provide him with all correspondence, including e-mail, concerning the 2001 revaluation process for the City of New Haven (“city”) between representatives of Yale University or Yale-New Haven Hospital and representatives of the Vision Appraisal Company or the city. The complainant asked that the respondent assessor inform him if the cost would exceed $100.
4. It is also found that by letter dated January 28, 2002 the complainant requested that the respondent manager provide him with access to the following, for which he indicated his willingness to pay up to $100 but asked that the respondent manager inform him if the cost would exceed $100:
i) all documents (1995- present), including e-mail, referencing any of the following properties: 184 Liberty St., 2 Whitney Ave., 1156 Chapel St., 60 and 64 Ashmun St., 246 Church St., 35 College St., 350, 370 Congress Ave., 313 and 353 Crown St., 120 East St., 746 Fountain St., 31 Hillhouse Ave., 205 Park St., 14 Prospect Pl., 459 Prospect St., 215 and 221 Whitney Ave., 139 York St., 194 York St., 103, 109, and 111 Davenport;
ii) an electronic copy (in excel spreadsheet format) of all Grand List information (1995-present) for all exempt college and hospital properties, code PABX and PBBX, and for all taxable properties owned by Yale University, Yale-New Haven Hospital, Yale-New Haven Medical Center, Chapel Company, and any other Yale subsidiaries; and
iii) an electronic copy (in excel spreadsheet format) of all available data from the list of revalued assessments for the 2001 Grand list, for every property that meets the criteria in #2, above.
5. Section 1-200(5), G.S., in relevant part, defines “public records” as follows:
Public records or files means 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.
6. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, 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, 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. 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….
[Emphasis added.]
7. Section 1-211, G.S., further provides:
(a) Any public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made. Except as otherwise provided by state statute, the cost for providing a copy of such data shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
8. It is found that the respondents maintain some of the requested records and such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-211(a), G.S.
9. With respect to the complainant’s request as described in paragraph 3 above, it is found that the respondent assessor by letter dated January 8, 2002 provided the complainant with some correspondence, which the complainant acknowledged that he received, however, the complainant is uncertain as to whether he received all documents responsive to his request.
10. At the hearing in this matter, the parties agreed to the following:
a) With respect to the complainant’s request as described in paragraph 4i) above, the complainant agreed to limit his request to e-mail within the respondent assessor’s office. The respondents agreed to provide, within 30 days, and the complainant agreed to accept, the following: all e-mails that are readily retrievable from the staff of the assessor’s office. In this regard, the respondents will follow-up with the staff and have each person search and provide copies of all e-mails referencing the subject properties;
b) With respect to the complainant’s request as described in paragraph 4iii) above, the complainant agreed to accept, and the respondents agreed to provide, within 30 days, the following: a 2001 Grand List document similar to the document identified as Complainant’s Exhibit C, but in electronic spreadsheet format; such document will include “neighborhood” and the “ward” information that the respondent has, and will also include information relative to “exemptions for personal properties”; the respondents will try to include PABX and PBBX code information, if possible, and if such codes cannot be included, the respondents will provide, and the complainant agreed to accept, the Annual Report to OPM regarding colleges and hospitals. The respondents indicated that fulfilling this request would not require the creation of a “program” and therefore the costs involved would be minimal.
11. With respect to the complainant’s request as described in paragraph 4ii) above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain the requested Grand Lists in electronic format. The respondents however, maintain the Grand Lists in hard copy form. It is also found that during July of 2001 the respondents were able to provide the complainant with some historic data (in electronic form) for the years 1997- 2000, which data existed at that time.
12. It is found that the respondents and the complainant have not engaged in a meaningful dialogue whereby the complainant can explain clearly what information he is trying to obtain and the respondent can explain to him what information they are able to provide, and the costs involved. Based on the record in this case, it appears that the complainant is of the impression that the respondents are able to provide a greater amount of information, very inexpensively, than is the reality of the situation, and the respondents attitude appear to be that since major effort (staff time) is required on their part to fulfill the complainant’s requests then they are somehow rid of their obligation because of the burdensome nature of the requests. At the hearing in this matter, the Hearing Officer explained clearly to the respondents that the complainant is entitled to all non-exempt data if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made.
13. The record in this case does not support the imposition of civil penalties. Therefore, the request is denied.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. With respect to the request as described in paragraph 3 of the findings, above, the respondent assessor shall forthwith, conduct a detailed and diligent search of his records and provide the complainant with any additional correspondence, that exist, that are responsive to the complainant’s request. If additional correspondence is found, the respondent assessor shall forthwith provide same to the complainant along with an affidavit attesting to the fact that all existing correspondence requested have been provided to the complainant. If no additional correspondence is found, the respondent assessor shall provide to the complainant an affidavit attesting to the fact that he has conducted a detailed and diligent search of his records, and that all existing records requested have been provided to the complainant.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Bill O’Brien, Tax Assessor, City
of New Haven; and Carl Ioveino,
Manager of Information Office Technology,
Information Technology Department, City
of New Haven
c/o Donna Chance Dowdie, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
165 Church Street, 4th floor
New Haven, CT 06510
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-048/FD/paj/9/26/2002