FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 28, 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 May 2, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his February 16, 2005 and April 8, 2005 written requests to the respondent for copies of public records.

 

3.   It is found that the complainant, by email sent February 16, 2005, made the following request to the complainant:

 

I would like to get copies of all pertinent documents, which you feel prove any of your allegations of harassment by me.  I also want copies of documents of any allegations of misconduct on my part made by you or your staff members to the Legislative Management Committee.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent by letter dated March 21, 2005 provided certain  records in response to the complainant’s February 16, 2005 request. 

 

5.  It is found that the respondent conducted research in order to provide the records included in his March 21, 2005 response to the complainant.

 

6.  It is found that the complainant, by email sent March 22, 2005, thanked the respondent for the records provided, and asked if all the information had been provided.

 

7.  It is found that the complainant, by email sent April 8, 2005, requested, among other records no longer at issue, “copies of all letters[s] sent out with my signature to the LPRAC [Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission] commissioners in that year.”

 

8.  It is found that the respondent provided electronic copies of the letters requested in the complainant’s April 8, 2005 email.

 

9.  It is found that the complainant, by email sent April 22, 2005 to the respondent, asserted his belief that the respondent had not fully complied with the complainant’s February 16, 2005 request, and announced his intention to file an FOI complaint.

 

10.   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.

 

11.   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.

 

            12.  Although not raised by the complainant, the Commission necessarily raises the issue of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to consider the alleged denial of the complainant’s  February 16, 2005 request.         

 

            13.  Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:         

 

    Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial ….

 

            14.  Section 1-206(a), G.S., provides:

 

    Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request, except when the request is determined to be subject to subsections (b) and (c) of section 1-214, in which case such denial shall be made, in writing, within ten business days of such request.  Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.

           

            15.  It is found that, if the complainant’s original February 16, 2005 request was denied, it was denied no later than March 21, 2005, when the respondent provided the records he had been able to find in response to the complainant’s request.

           

16.  It is found, construing the complainant’s March 22, 2005 email in terms most favorable to the complainant, that the complainant re-requested the records on that date.

 

17.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that Friday March 25, 2005 was a legal holiday.

 

18.  It is concluded that, pursuant to §1-206(a), G.S., the complainant’s March 22, 2005 re-request was deemed denied by operation of law on Tuesday, March 29, 2005, and that therefore a complaint concerning this denial was required by §1-206(b)(1), G.S.,  to have been filed within thirty days; that is, by April 28, 2005.

 

19.  It is also found that the complainant’s April 22, 2005 email to the respondent asserting his intention to file a complaint with the Commission was not itself another request for the records originally requested on February 16, 2005, and re-requested on March 22, 2005.

 

20.  It is therefore concluded that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the complainant’s alleged denial of his February 16 and March 22, 2005 requests.

 

21.  With respect to the complainant’s April 8, 2005 request, the complainant contends that his request for letters “sent out with my signature” was not complied with, because the electronic copies provided to him did not contain his signature. 

 

22.  It is found that the respondent conducted a diligent search for letters with the complainant’s signature on them, and was not able to locate any.

 

23.  It is also found that the complainant’s April 8, 2005 request is reasonably understood as a request for the letters that he signed, not the actual signed copies.

 

24.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) or 1-212(a), G.S., by providing the only copies of letters signed by the complainant in the respondent’s possession.

 

           

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 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:

 

Ramon Arroyo

97 Amity Street

Hartford, CT 06106-1001

 

Executive Director,

State of Connecticut,

Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs

Commission

18-20 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-191FD/paj/2/15/2006