FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 30, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2005-125; Christopher Miner v. Assessor, Town of Stonington.

 

           

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.   By letter dated February 14, 2005, and filed with the Commission on February 22, 2005, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by:

 

a)      failing to give him a price for e-mailing a copy of the current parcel shapefile;

 

(b)  assessing a fee of $1000 for a copy of a CD which contains more GIS information than he needed; and

 

(c)  requiring that he sign a license agreement before releasing GIS data to him. 

 

3.  It is found that, beginning with a January 27, 2005 e-mail from the complainant to the respondent, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with a current parcel shapefile from the town of Stonington’s GIS system which the complainant could link to the “sales data” dump table available at the Stonington Assessor’s office [hereinafter “the requested record”]. 

 

4.  It is found that a series of e-mails then ensued between the parties whereby:

 

: the respondent offered to provide the entire GIS database on a CD to the complainant for a fee of $1000 and the signing of a disclaimer;

 

: the complainant replied that he only wished a copy of a portion of the GIS database, namely the requested record;

 

: the parties corresponded about the length of time and cost it would take to provide the complainant with the requested record. 

 

5.  It is found that, as of the time of the filing of the complaint in this matter, the respondent had not provided the complainant with an estimated cost of providing the requested record. 

 

6.  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…receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.” 

 

7.  Section 1-211, G.S., provides in relevant part that: 

 

“(a)  Any public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made.  Except as otherwise provided by state statute, the cost for providing a copy of such data shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.”

 

8.  Section 1-212, G.S. provides, in relevant part that:

 

“(b)  The fee for any copy provided in accordance with subsection (a) of section 1-211 shall not exceed the cost thereof to the public agency.  In determining such costs for a copy, other than for a printout which exists at the time that the agency responds to the request for such copy, an agency may include only:

 

(1)  An amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to all agency employees engaged in providing the requested computer-stored public record, including their time performing the formatting or programming functions necessary to provide the copy as requested, but not including search or retrieval costs except as provided in subdivision (4) of this subsection;

 

(2)  An amount equal to the cost to the agency of engaging an outside professional electronic copying service to provide such copying services, if such service is necessary to provide the copying as requested;

 

(3)  The actual cost of the storage devices or media provided to the person making the request in complying with such request; and

 

(4)  The computer time charges incurred by the agency in providing the requested computer-stored public record where another agency or contractor provides the agency with computer storage and retrieval services….”

 

(c)  A public agency may require the prepayment of any fee required or permitted under the Freedom of Information Act if such fee is estimated to be ten dollars or more.  The sales tax provided in chapter 219 shall not be imposed upon any transaction for which a fee is required or permissible under this section or section 1-227.”

 

9.   It is found that, during March 2005, pursuant to a settlement reached in a court action, the respondent provided the complainant with the requested record, as well as all data in the GIS system, for no fee and without the necessity of filing the disclaimer described in paragraph 4, above.  

 

10.  At the hearing in this matter, after testimony from one of the respondent’s witnesses, the complainant conceded that he “had apparently asked for the wrong thing.”  Specifically, it is found that there was a genuine miscommunication between the parties in that the respondent reasonably believed that the complainant sought a “current” parcel shapefile, which the complainant requested, rather than the most recent parcel shapefile, which the complainant in fact wanted. 

 

11.  It is found that providing the current parcel shapefile involved a great deal of work to compile, as the town was undergoing a revaluation and data was constantly changing.   It is also found that, as a consequence, it took many hours to provide the complainant with the requested record.  It is found, however, that if the complainant had requested the most recent parcel shapefile, such record could have been easily and quickly provided to him. 

 

12.   With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.a, above, it is found

that there was significant miscommunication and confusion between the parties as to what was being sought by the complainant.  Accordingly, it is not surprising that the respondent could not provide the complainant with an estimated fee for the requested record within two weeks.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in paragraph 2.a, above.

 

13.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2.b and 2.c, above, it is

concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, since the complainant was provided with the requested record without being required to pay a fee or sign a disclaimer. 

 

14.   At the hearing in this matter, the complainant expressed concerns about

future requests he might make of the respondent, future fees he might be assessed and disclaimers he might be required to sign.  However, this Commission has no jurisdiction over such future events and can only advise the respondent that he must comply with the fee requirements of §1-212, G.S.  Additionally, the respondent is advised to review the final decision in Docket#FIC2000-049; Nicholas B. Wynnick v. Board of Directors, Ansonia Public Library, Town of Ansonia (December 13, 2000), wherein the Commission found that requiring a precondition to access public records is violative of the FOI Act.   

 

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 8, 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:

 

Christopher Miner

322 Captain’s Walk

New London, CT 06320

 

Director, Administrative Services

Department, Town of Stonington

c/o Thomas J. Londregan, Esq.

38 Huntington Street

New London, CT 06320

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-077FD/paj/2/15/2006