FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 12, 2003, 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.  By letter dated August 27, 2002, the complainant requested from the fiscal administrative supervisor of the respondent department (hereinafter “FAS”) “data concerning the average numbers of days absent for State Department of Education employees for the past four years.”  The complainant stated in his letter that “[t]his average is based on the number of days lost for each year of the [sic] four years I am asking for.”  The FAS received the complainant’s request sometime in September 2002.

 

            3.  By letter dated September 28, 2002, postmarked October 3, 2002 and filed October 7, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents had failed to respond to and comply with his request.

 

4.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

5.   In turn, §1-212, G.S., provides in relevant part: 

 

(a)  Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

 

            6.  It is found that to the extent records exist that are responsive to the complainant’s request, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210, G.S.

 

7.  By letter dated December 2, 2002, the FAS responded to the complainant’s August 2002 request and advised the complainant that the respondent department did not maintain a record responsive to his request.  The FAS referenced a similar request from the complainant in 2001, in response to which the FAS had created a record that he hoped would satisfy the complainant at that time.  The FAS indicated that due to current workloads, he could not undertake similar steps to create an additional record in response to the complainant’s August 2002 request.

 

8.  It is found that the complainant made a request to the respondents in 2001 for annual reports of employee absenteeism for the respondent department for the prior three years (1998, 1999 and 2000).  The FAS responded to the 2001 request and indicated that the respondent department did not maintain such a record.  However, in good faith, the FAS compiled data from a number of sources and provided the complainant with approximate information for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 concerning days worked, unscheduled days absent and number of employees within the respondent department.

 

9.  It is found that from the information provided in response to the complainant’s 2001 request, the complainant could easily calculate the average number of days absent for 1998, 1999 and 2000.

 

10.  It is found that the complainant was not satisfied with the respondents’ response to his 2001 request for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, and stated that he would prefer to have the respondents make the calculation concerning average number of days absent, rather than himself, and further that the requested information should be available in a form similar to that which is posted on the respondent department’s web site for classroom teachers.

 

11.  It is found however, that the respondent department does not maintain the specific record in the form sought by the complainant and is not required to create such a record pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.  Further, as noted in paragraph 9 above, the complainant could ascertain the absentee rate for three of the four years he requested in August 2002 from the information provided to him in 2001, but he remains unsatisfied with the form in which the information was provided.  Thus, were the respondents to create an additional record containing similar information for the year 2001, the complainant would continue to be unsatisfied and such an effort on the respondents’ part would be fruitless.

 

12.  It is concluded that since no record exists within the respondent department in the form requested by the complainant, the respondents did not violate the Freedom of Information Act in this case.

 

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 September 10, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Martin Edgar

6 Berkshire Road

Rocky Hill, CT  06067

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Education; Personnel Administrator,

State of Connecticut, Department of Education,

Human Resources Division; and State of       

Connecticut, Department of Education

c/o Michael Sullivan, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, PO Box 120

Hartford, CT  06141-0120

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-481FD/abg/09/11/2003