FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 5, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

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

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed February 14, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by asking the complainant for what purpose he wanted requested information, by asking third parties how the requested information was to be used, and by requiring the complainant to pay for the work or overtime work to comply with the request.

 

3.   It is found that the complainant, by telephone messages left on January 13, 2005, requested the total number of alarms for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent provided the requested information to the complainant by letter dated January 20, 2005.

 

5.  It is found that the respondent conducted research in order to provide the requested information.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent’s January 20, 2005 letter:

 

a.                noted that the complainant “did not say what the information was for, how you wanted it or if you would need further information;”

b.                asked the complainant to make any future request in writing;

c.                noted that the Branford Police Commission chairman had called the respondent and asked if the State Police Commissioners Association had requested the information, as asserted by the complainant to the Police Commission chairman;

d.                noted that the there were approximately 50 pages of records for each year, and that the cost of the records would be $.50 per page;

e.                noted that the secretary is paid overtime to copy records “so that any requests for her work will be at overtime pay.”

 

7.   Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

   “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, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

8.   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.

 

            9.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

            10.  Section 1-212(a)(2), G.S., also provides in relevant part that “[t]he fee for any copy provided in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act” by a municipal government agency “shall not exceed fifty cents per page.”           

 

            11.  It is found that the complainant requested information, not records.  It is also found that the requested information was provided to him, and that additional records were offered at $.50 per page.

           

12.  It is found that the respondent did not attempt to charge the complainant more than $.50 per page for records, or charge the complainant for overtime.  Rather, it is found that the respondent works only two hours per week, and that the respondent attempted to communicate to the complainant, a former town official, that the cost to the Town of Branford for providing the records includes overtime pay to a secretary.

 

13.  It is found that the respondent did not require the complainant to identify his purpose for requesting the information as a precondition to his receiving the records.

 

14.  Indeed, it is found that the respondent did not inquire as to the purpose for which the information was sought at all, but merely observed, only after the respondent provided the information, that the complainant had not offered an explanation for his need for the records.

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a) or 1-212(a), G.S.

           

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

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 25, 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:

 

David R. Jacobs

55 Swift Street

Branford, CT 06405

 

False Alarm Administrator,

Town of Branford

c/o Elizabeth P. Gilson, Esq.

383 Orange Street

New Haven, CT 06511

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-066FD/paj/1/31/2006