FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 29, 2005, at which time the complainants 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.  The State of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management, shall hereinafter be referenced as “OPM.”

 

3.   It is found that, by letter dated May 2, 2005, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with copies of the employee reduction options files referenced in a November 8, 2002 e-mail authored by Frank Miano, a former employee of OPM, including “all documents, all analyst option types and all entries added by all analysts to all files which are part of employee reduction options” [hereinafter “the requested records”].  It is further found that the complainants specified that the requested records should be provided as they existed on November 20, 2002, and as saved on OPM back-up media. 

 

4.   It is found that, by separate letter dated May 2, 2005, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with a separate version of the requested records as they existed on April 23, 2005 [hereinafter “the requested records, version 2”]. 

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated May 10, 2005, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the letters described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, and informed the complainants that he was searching for the requested records and for the requested records, version 2. 

 

6.  By letter of complaint dated May 13, 2005, and filed May 16, 2005, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their May 2, 2005 requests. 

 

7.   Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept 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. 

 

8.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record….”

 

9.  It is found that, under cover letter dated May 27, 2005, the respondent provided the complainants with an electronic copy of the requested records, version 2.  It is also found that, by such letter, the respondent informed the complainants that OPM only backs-up its server for a period of one year, and, accordingly, the respondent could not provide them with a copy of the requested records, since they no longer exist. 

 

10.  It is found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain the requested records, within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.  Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to such records, as alleged in the complaint.

 

11.  It is found that, by letter dated June 20, 2005, the complainants acknowledged receipt of the requested records, version 2, described in paragraph 9, above.  However, the complainants indicated that certain electronic files were missing, specifically, “files 1,2,3 and whatever follows Employee_Reduction_OPTI#3E6.xls; files A, B, C, D, E and whatever follows Employee_ Reduction_OPTI#3E6.xls; and files 1,2,3,4,5,6 and whatever follows Employee_Reduction_OPTI#3E6.xls.” 

 

12.  It is found that, by letter dated June 23, 2005, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the letter described in paragraph 11, above, and informed the complainants that he was searching for the records specified therein. 

 

13.  It is found that, under cover letter dated July 22, 2005, the respondent provided the complainants with an electronic copy of the records described in paragraph 11, above. 

 

14.  At the hearing in this matter, it became apparent that there had been a genuine miscommunication between the parties in that, based on past requests, the respondent believed the complainants only sought the requested records, version 2, with respect to their particular bargaining unit, while in actuality the complainants were seeking the requested records, version 2, with respect to all bargaining units.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent represented that he would promptly provide the complainants with the requested records, version 2, for all bargaining units.  

 

15.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the requested records, version 2, as alleged in the complaint.

 

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 March 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:

 

Michael Winkler and the

Administrative and Residual

Employees Union Local 4200

705 North Mountain Road

Suite A211

Newington, CT 06111-1411

 

Director of Legal Services, State

of Connecticut, Office of Policy

and Management

450 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106-1308

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-213FD/paj/3/15/2006