FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-460 | |
|
Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan District Commission; and Metropolitan District Commission, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 13, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 16, 2001, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that by e-mail dated September 25, 2001 the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with “ a report of all Metropolitan District Commission [MDC] employees for the past 3 years” who have been promoted, such report to include the following categories of information:
(i) name of employee; (ii) employee’s original job class and description; (iii) employee’s original pay rate before promotion; (iv) employee’s new job class and description; (v) employee’s new pay rate at time of promotion; (vi) employee’s pay rate after probation following promotion; (vii) date of promotion; and (viii) number of employee days on probation
(hereinafter “report”).
3. It is found that the respondents received the request on September 25, 2001.
4. Having failed to receive the requested report, the complainant, by letter dated October 3, 2001 and filed with the Commission on October 4, 2001, appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him the requested report.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., 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. [Emphasis added.]
6.
It is found that the
respondents do not have, maintain, or keep on file, in the normal course of
their record keeping, a report, which contains the categories of information
(or any portion) requested by the complainant.
7.
It is found that the respondents, under the terms of their union
agreement with the complainant’s union, created a report for the
complainant, with respect to the 140 MDC employees who belong to such union.
8.
The respondents contend that they are not obligated to create a report
for all 800 MDC employees, that it would be extremely burdensome, and that the
creation of the report provided to the complainant and described in paragraph
7, above, was burdensome and required that the personnel file of each of the
140 employees concerned be manually pulled, the relevant categories of
information retrieved and inputted in their computer system, and then the
report generated.
9. It is concluded that the FOI Act does not require that the respondents, or any public agency, create a report, such as the one requested by the complainant.
10. The complainant contends that because the respondents created the report with respect to the 140 employees they should be required to do so for all MDC employees. It is found however, that the respondents were not obligated under the FOI Act to create the report that they did.
11. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act 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 February 13, 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:
Chief Executive Officer,
Metropolitan District Commission;
and Metropolitan District Commission
c/o Anthony J. Palermino, Esq.
945 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114-3137
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-460/FD/paj/2/15/2002