FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 22, 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 #s FIC 2005-250; Frederick Hesse v. Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools; and FIC2005-260; Lori Matute v. Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools.

 

            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 of complaint dated May 25, 2005, and filed May 31, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to comply with his May 10, 2005, request for records, as described in paragraph 5, below.   

 

3.  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.” 

 

 

4.  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….”

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated May 10, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of any and all legal bills pertaining to the Brookfield School District [hereinafter “the district”] from January 1, 2003 to May 10, 2005 [hereinafter “the requested records”].   

 

6.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

7.  It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with copies of the requested records on August 3, 2005.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent testified that time was needed to redact student information from the requested records but acknowledged that the provision of such records to the complainant was not prompt, and informed the Commission that he has taken remedial steps in his office to ensure that future FOI requests are complied with promptly. 

 

8.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

9.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant did not contest the redaction of confidential student information from the requested records, but contended that there should be other records, since the requested records provided to the complainant, evidence an expenditure of approximately $60,000, and an expenditure report for the district indicates that approximately $116,000 was expended by the district for legal services and negotiations in fiscal year 2004. 

 

10.  It is found however, that the discrepancy of approximately $56,000 is explained by the district’s automatic incremental payments in compliance with the terms of a prior settlement agreement; and that the respondent does not maintain legal bills associated with such payments that are responsive to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 5, above.  It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with all records, which he keeps on file or maintains, which are responsive to the request described in paragraph 5, above. 

 

On the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint, no order by the Commission is hereby recommended. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 22, 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:

 

Frederick Hesse

c/o Arms Acres Intake

75 Seminary Hill Road

Carmel, NY 10512

 

Superintendent of Schools,

Brookfield Public Schools

c/o Susan Gundersen, Esq.

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105-4286 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-255FD/paj/3/27/2006