FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 1, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. 

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated August 31, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with copies of the following records, which copies shall hereinafter be referenced as “the requested records”:

 

a.  any civil summons (first page) which names the respondent board as first or second named plaintiff or defendant;

 

b.  all minutes of meetings which specifically reference Regina Link in either open or executive session;

 

c.  all minutes of meetings wherein the respondent board voted to commence litigation against Regina Link;

 

d.  all minutes of the respondent board and the Easton Board of Selectmen [hereinafter “BOS”], or any sub-boards thereof, which reference discussion of litigation with Regina Link;

 

e.  all minutes of the respondent board and the BOS, which signify a vote to commence litigation against Regina Link as second named defendant;

 

f.  all minutes of meetings, either in open session or executive session, at which Attorney Suzannah Nigro, representing the BOS or the respondent board appeared to discuss litigation with Regina Link; and

 

g.  all minutes of any meetings following the appearance of Attorney Nigro at which a vote was taken by members of the respondent board to commence litigation against Regina Link.   

 

3.  It is found that, within a few days of receiving the request described in paragraph 2, above, the director of finance and operations [hereinafter “the director”] for the Easton Public Schools telephoned the complainant on behalf of the respondents and informed him that she had searched the respondents’ minutes and that she could find no responsive records.  It is further found that, by letter dated September 12, 2005, the director again informed the complainant that the respondents do not maintain any requested records. 

 

4.  By letter dated September 12, 2005, and filed with the Commission on September 15, 2005, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying him copies of the requested records. 

 

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

 

“[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.” 

 

6.  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.” 

 

7.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent chairman violated the FOI Act by not personally responding to the request described in paragraph 2, above.  However, nothing in the FOI Act prohibits the respondent chairman from delegating her responsibilities to an employee of the Easton Public Schools.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by not personally responding to the request described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

8.  It is found that the Easton Superintendent of Schools [hereinafter “the superintendent”] decided to join with the BOS as plaintiff in a lawsuit against Regina Link as defendant, and that such lawsuit was filed August 30, 2005.

 

9.  It is further found that the decision described in paragraph 8, above, was not made by the respondents.  It is further found that, accordingly, the respondents do not maintain records responsive to the complainant’s requests described in paragraphs 2.b, 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, and 2.f, above. 

 

10.  It is found that a one-page record exists that is responsive to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2.a, above.  It is also found that the respondents did not maintain a copy of such record within their offices at the time of the complainant’s request.  However, it is also found the respondents’ attorney in the lawsuit described in paragraph 8, above, authored such record, and that the respondents failed to search for such record promptly at the attorney’s office in response to the complainant’s request.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. 

 

11.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant was in possession of the one-page record described in paragraph 2.a, above. 

 

12.  At the hearing in this matter, and/or on brief, the complainant contended that: the respondents did not cooperate with the ombudsman in this matter; the superintendent was not authorized to commit the respondents to the lawsuit described in paragraph 8, above; and that the respondent chairman did not comply with a subpoena that the complainant issued in connection with this matter.

 

13.  With respect to the complainant’s contentions described in paragraph 12, above, the Commission is not permitted to consider communications made during the ombudsman process, the superintendent’s authority is not at issue in this matter, and the complainant failed to prove that a lawful subpoena was issued to the respondent chairman by the complainant in this matter. 

 

            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 August 9, 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:

 

Clarence Jennings

71 Hall Road

Easton, CT 06612

 

Chairman, Board of Education,

Easton Public Schools; and

Board of Education, Easton

Public Schools

c/o Donald W. Strickland, Esq. and

Daniel P. Murphy, Esq.

Siegel, O’Connor, O’Donnell & Beck, P.C.

150 Trumbull Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-446FD/paj/8/10/2006