FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 27, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated June 15, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with “any information you have in your records with respect to all grievances filed by AAUP [Association of American University Professors] on behalf of faculty members … for the past five (5) years, to the extent such disclosure is required by law” (hereinafter “requested records”).  The complainant indicated in his letter that the information requested need not include the grievant’s name, however, he wanted the nature of the grievance, gender, tenure status, resolution of the grievance, and any action taken by the respondent university.  

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated July 5, 2005, the complainant again requested that the respondent provide him with the requested records.

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated July 7, 2005, the respondent informed the complainant that “the documents and time period you have referenced is extensive, and the University will need additional time to gather all the documents responsive to your request and to redact information….”.  The respondent further informed the complainant in the July 7, 2005 letter that a fee of twenty-five cents per page would apply to copies of records being provided, and that the respondent would contact the complainant as soon as the records were located, reviewed, and the fee determined.    

 

5.  By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on July 15, 2005, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the requested records.  The complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondent.  

 

6.  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 …or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  [Emphasis added].

 

7.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides that: “[A]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record”.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., further provides that a state agency may charge a fee not exceeding twenty-five cents per page for copies of public records.

  

8.  Section 1-212(c), G.S., also provides that: “[A] public agency may require the prepayment of any fee required or permitted under the … [FOI] Act if such fee is estimated to be ten dollars or more”.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent maintains numerous records that are responsive to the complainant’s request.  Specifically, the respondent maintains grievances and related records, including: correspondence, responses to the grievances, and records of hearings pertaining to such grievances.

 

10.  It is concluded that the records maintained by the respondent, and described in paragraph 9, above, are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

11.  It is found that, by letter dated August 29, 2005, the respondent informed the complainant that, “we required additional time to review all the material relevant to your request.  Given the volume, it has taken us longer to locate all the documentation….We have determined that there are approximately 2,204 pages of documents responsive to your request”.  The respondent further informed the complainant that the fee payable in advance was $551.00.

 

12.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant informed the Commission that the sole issue to be addressed by the Commission concerns the number of pages the respondent compiled in response to his request and the corresponding fee of $551.00 being charged.

 

13.   It is found that the complainant takes issue with the 2,204 pages and believes that number of pages is excessive in light of the fact that he made a similar request to Western Connecticut State University, which university informed him that 289 pages of records were located in response to his request. 

 

14.  It is found, however, that the complainant’s request is very broad and asked for any information the respondent has with respect to all grievances filed by the AAUP on behalf of faculty members for the past five (5) years.  It is also found that given the complainant’s broad request, the respondent did not act unreasonably when he compiled all records concerning all grievances filed by the AAUP for the past five (5) years.  It is further found that the respondent was obligated under the FOI Act to respond to the complainant’s request fully, which he did by compiling all responsive records.

 

15.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant narrowed his records request to include only the grievances filed, and the outcome of such grievances.

 

16.  Based upon the complainant’s narrowing of his records request, the respondent represented at the hearing in this matter that he will review the 2,204 pages, described in paragraphs 11 and 13, above, and identify grievances and outcomes of such grievances only, and will provide same to the complainant upon receipt of prepayment of the appropriate fee.

 

17.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act when he compiled 2,204 pages of records in response to the complainant’s request, and charged the complainant a fee of $551.00.

18.  However, it is also concluded that the respondent’s July 7, 2005 response to the request was not prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

19.  It is further concluded that the respondent’s ultimate provision of access to the requested records, by letter dated August 29, 2005, and more than ten weeks from the complainant’s initial June 15, 2005 request, was not prompt, within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

20.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

21.  The Commission in its discretion declines to consider the imposition of a civil penalty in this matter.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  If he has not already done so, forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the grievances, and records showing the outcome of such grievances, upon receipt of prepayment for such copies by the complainant. 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Carlos Ramirez

125-12 Jamaica Avenue

Richmond Hill, NY 11418

 

Cecil Murphy, Associate Vice

President, State of Connecticut,

Southern Connecticut State

University, Department of Human

Resources 

c/o Craig W. Patenaude, Esq.

Human Resources

Southern CT State University

501 Crescent Street

New Haven, CT 06515-1355

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-346FD/paj/1/17/2006