FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 9, 2004, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

 

1.  It is found that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.  It is found that the complainants, through counsel, and by letter dated September 10, 2002, directed a request to the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), asking that they be provided with “all materials in the possession or control of …[the DEP] relating to the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) flood management certification application and/or the Flood Management Exemption Request filed by the DPW.  Kindly forward all documents responsive to this request to my attention upon receipt of this letter…” (hereinafter “requested records”). [1]

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated February 26, 2003 the DEP provided counsel for the complainants with access to some of the requested records however, the DEP denied access to some of the records and informed counsel for the complainants that “…certain records though responsive to your request, have been withheld in whole or in part pursuant to Connecticut General Stat. §1-210(b)…”

 

            4.    Having failed to receive all of the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated March 14, 2003, and filed on March 18, 2003, appealed to the Commission, alleging that the DEP and DPW denied them access to certain records pursuant to §1-210(b)(19), G.S.

 

            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 (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.  [Emphasis added].

 

            6.  Section 1-210(b), G.S., provides, in relevant part: “[N]othing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:

(19)  Records when there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person, any government-owned or leased institution or facility or any fixture or appurtenance and equipment attached to, or contained in, such institution or facility, except that such records shall be disclosed to a law enforcement agency upon the request of the law enforcement agency.  Such reasonable grounds shall be determined (A) with respect to records concerning any executive branch agency of the state or any municipal, district or regional agency, by the Commissioner of Public Works, after consultation with the chief executive officer of the agency; (B) with respect to records concerning Judicial Department facilities, by the Chief Court Administrator; and (C) with respect to records concerning the Legislative Department, by the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management.  As used in this section, “government-owned or leased institution or facility” includes, but is not limited to, an institution or facility owned or leased by a public service company, as defined in section 16-1, a certified telecommunications provider, as defined in section 16-1, or a municipal utility that furnishes electric, gas or water service, but does not include an institution or facility owned or leased by the federal government, and “chief executive officer” includes, but is not limited to, an agency head, department head, executive director or chief executive officer.  Such records include, but are not limited to:

(i)  Security manuals or reports;

(ii)  Engineering and architectural drawings of government-owned or leased institutions or facilities;

(iii)  Operational specifications of security systems utilized at any government-owned or leased institution or facility, except that a general description of any such security system and the cost and quality of such system, may be disclosed;

(iv)  Training manuals prepared for government-owned or leased institutions or facilities that describe, in any manner, security procedures, emergency plans or security equipment;

(v)  Internal security audits of government-owned or leased institutions or facilities;

(vi)  Minutes or records of meetings, or portions of such minutes or records, that contain or reveal information relating to security or other records otherwise exempt from disclosure under this subdivision;

(vii)  Logs or other documents that contain information on the movement or assignment of security personnel at government-owned or leased institutions or facilities; and

(viii)  Emergency plans and emergency recovery or response plans”.

[Emphasis added].

            7.  It is concluded that the records at issue are “public records” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. 

 

            8.  It is found that the records at issue concern a Judicial Department facility, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(19), G.S.  Specifically, the records pertain to a proposed Superior Court and Center for Juvenile Matters in Bridgeport.

 

            9.  It is also found that it is the respondent, pursuant to §1-210(b)(19), G.S., who determined that there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure of the records at issue may result in a safety risk.

 

            10.  Following the hearing in this matter, the records at issue were submitted to the Commission for an in camera inspection. 

 

            11.  The in camera records consist of 75 pages and have been designated, for identification purposes, IC2003-104-1 though IC2003-104-75, inclusive.

 

            12.  The Index to In Camera records submitted to the Commission along with the in camera records indicate that the respondent makes no claim of exemption with respect to pages IC2003-104-4, IC2003-104-7 and IC2003-104-34.  Consequently, it is concluded that such pages should have been promptly disclosed to the complainants.

 

            13.  It is found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of the following pages, which constitute “emergency plans” or “response plans”, may result in a safety risk, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(19), G.S., and consequently such records are exempt from disclosure:

 

IC2003-104-2 (bulleted item 9 only), IC2003-104-5 through IC2003-104-6, IC2003-104-8 through IC2003-104-19, IC2003-104-32 through IC2003-104-33, IC2003-104-35 through IC2003-104-46 and IC2003-104-67 through IC2003-104-75.

 

            14.  It is found that the respondent failed to prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of the following records may result in a safety risk, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(19), G.S., and therefore, they are not exempt from disclosure:

 

IC2003-104-1, IC2003-104-2 (except bulleted item 9), IC2003-104-3, IC2003-104-20, IC2003-104-22 through IC2003-104-27, IC2003-104-29 through IC2003-104-31, IC2003-104-48 through IC2003-104-53, IC2003-104-55 and IC2003-104-56.

 

            15.  It is found that IC2003-104-21, IC2003-104-28, IC2003-104-47, IC2003-104-54 and IC2003-104-57 through IC2003-104-66 are drawings or maps.  It is found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of specific portions of IC2003-104-21, IC2003-104-28, IC2003-104-47, IC2003-104-54 and IC2003-104-57 through IC2003-104-66, which reveal the following, may result in a safety risk, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(19), G.S., and therefore, such specific portions are exempt from disclosure:

 

mechanical systems, including, but not limited to heating, ventilation, air conditioning, sewer and drainage; site utilities and utility equipment, communications lines, secure areas, including but not limited to control room area; security equipment, transformers, storage tanks, emergency generators, entrances to detention areas, manhole covers, hydrants, fencing, safety and fire alarms/alerts, evacuation alarms, evacuation routes and security cameras.

 

            16.  It is found that the respondent failed to prove that there are reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of the remaining portions of IC2003-104-21, IC2003-104-28, IC2003-104-47, IC2003-104-54 and IC2003-104-57 through IC2003-104-66 may result in a safety risk, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(19), G.S., and therefore, the remaining portions are not exempt from disclosure.

 

            17.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose the records described in paragraph 13, above, and those portions of IC2003-104-21, IC2003-104-28, IC2003-104-47, IC2003-104-54 and IC2003-104-57 through IC2003-104-66 that reveal the information described in paragraph 15, above. 

 

            18.  However, it is also concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to promptly disclose the records described in paragraphs 12, 14 and 16, above.

 

            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 provide the complainants with a copy of IC2003-104-4, IC2003-104-7, IC2003-104-34 (as described in paragraph 12 of the findings, above), IC2003-104-1; IC2003-104-2 (except bulleted item 9), IC2003-104-3, IC2003-104-20, IC2003-104-22 through IC2003-104-27, IC2003-104-29 through IC2003-104-31, IC2003-104-48 through IC2003-104-53 and IC2003-104-55 and IC2003-104-56, (as described in paragraph 14 of the findings, above), and the portions of IC2003-104-21, IC2003-104-28, IC2003-104-47, IC2003-104-54 and IC2003-104-57 through 66 (as described in paragraph 16, of the findings, above).

 

 

                                                                                                                       

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 10, 2004.

 

 

 

___________________________________

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:

 

Matthew Preston and Bridgeport Trust

For Historic Preservation

955 Connecticut Avenue

Suite 1214

Bridgeport, CT  06607

 

Chief Court Administrator, State of Connecticut,

Judicial Department

c/o Martin Libbin, Esq.

Legal Services State of Connecticut

Judicial Branch

Court Operations Division

100 Washington Street

P.O. Box 150474

Hartford, CT  06115-0474

 

 And

 

c/o Joseph J. Del Ciampo, Esq.

Counsel, Legal Services

100 Washington Street, 3rd Floor

Hartford, CT  06106

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-104/FD/mes/03/11/2004