FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 7, 2006, 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, the above-captioned matter was consolidated with docket #FIC 2005-599, Deborah A. Carrier v. Tools for Schools Committee, Torrington High School, Board of Education, Torrington Public Schools; and docket #FIC2005-604, Joanne Avoletta v. Board of Education, Torrington 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.  It is found that, by request form dated November 8, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with an opportunity to inspect the name, address, type, date of service, and cost to Torrington Public Schools of any and all air quality related testing, evaluations, cleaning, and air inspections from 2003 to November 8, 2005, including recent testing performed on October 31, 2005. 

 

            3.  It is found that, on a request form for the release of information dated November 10, 2005, the complainant requested from the respondent a copy of “the Torrington School renovation file including the cost to the district to replace carpeting due to flooding in the building since the school opened in Fall 2005”.

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated November 14, 2005, the respondent denied the complainant’s requests as described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above. 

 

            5.  By letter of complaint dated November 14, 2005, and filed on November 17, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying the requests described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant abandoned her request described in paragraph 3, above.  The complainant also clarified her request in paragraph 2, above, to include only invoice-type information, and to exclude air quality testing records [hereinafter “the requested records”]. 

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

“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…inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours….”

7.  It is found that the respondent maintains the requested records and that such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.  It is further found that the requested records herein are not the same as those requested in docket #FIC2005-604; Joanne Avoletta v. Board of Education, Torrington Public Schools.

8.  The respondent contends that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-210(b)(4), G.S.

9.  Section 1-210(b)(4), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of “…records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled….”

 

10.  It is found that the respondent is a party to pending litigation, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S.  However, it is also found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested records, which essentially detail the expenditure of public funds, pertain to strategy or negotiations with respect to such litigation. 

 

11.  On brief, the respondent contends that the requested records may be protected under the rules of civil procedure.  However, requests for records under the FOI Act are to be determined by reference to the provisions of the Act, irrespective of whether they would be disclosable under the rules of discovery.  Chief of Police v. Freedom of Information Commission, 252 Conn. 377, 386 (2000). 

 

12.  It is concluded that the requested records are not permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(4), G.S.

 

13.  It is further concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., 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 respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the requested records, at no charge. 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 26, 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:

 

Deborah A. Carrier

135 Calhoun Street

Torrington, CT 06790

 

Board of Education, Torrington

Public Schools

c/o Victor M. Muschell, Esq.

104 Church Street

Torrington, CT 06790-5286

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-566FD/paj/8/2/2006