FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 27, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Pursuant to the July 27, 2006 Freedom of Information Commission order, the hearing in this matter was reopened for the limited purpose of taking additional testimony from a Mr. Theodore Grabarz.  A second hearing was held on September 7, 2006, at which time the complainant and respondent appeared and presented additional testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint within the limited scope ordered by the Commission.

 

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 letter dated November 14, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the document referenced in a letter dated April 12, 2002, from Theodore Grabarz to Thomas Sherwood, as “attachment #1”.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

3.      It is found that after corresponding with personnel at the respondent offices over the course of several weeks, the complainant was informed that she must have her attorney make the request for the record and that she could not make the request herself.

 

4.      By letter dated December 8, 2005 and filed on December 9, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with her request.

 

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, 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.      It is found that the requested record is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      At the February 27, 2006 hearing on this matter, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of a document that it purported to be “attachment #1” and has been marked for the record as respondent’s exhibit 1 (hereinafter “exhibit 1”). 

 

9.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that exhibit 1 was not “attachment #1.”

 

10.    It is found that the complainant was an employee of the Construction Management Services Division of the city of Bridgeport, which is the agency that is the subject of the April 12, 2002 letter.

 

11.   It is found that prior to the complainant’s November 14, 2005 request, a colleague of the complainant left a document on a desk for her to see, which document the complainant contends is  “attachment #1.”   It is found that the document the complainant saw was on letter size (8 1/2” by 11”) paper in letter format.

 

12.   It is found that exhibit 1 is a grid on legal size (11” by 14”) paper and is not the document the complainant saw. 

 

13.    It is also found that the complainant recognizes exhibit 1 as a document that was provided every two weeks to the employees of that division to apprise them of the status of various projects.

 

14.    It is found that the reference to “attachment #1” in the April 12, 2002 letter is as follows:

 

“Looking at attachment #1 you can see the specific projects that people are assigned in the primary areas mentioned above.”

 

15.    It is found that exhibit 1 is captioned as “Attachment 1, Executive Project Status: Division of CM Services” and it lists specific projects and the names of individuals assigned to manage those projects.

 

16.    It is found, however, that the April 12, 2002 letter was written in an effort to save eight specific positions in a department whose budget had been completely eliminated during the budget revision process for the next fiscal year.  The letter proposed to use funds from one budget area, rather than another, to pay the salaries of the eight positions.  The eight positions were listed in the April 12, 2002 letter and are referenced by the phrase “primary areas mentioned above” in the reference to “attachment #1” described in paragraph 12, above.

 

17.    It is found that six of the eight positions listed in the April 12, 2002 letter are not listed, or even alluded to, in exhibit 1.

 

18.    Notwithstanding the findings in paragraphs 10 through 17, above, it is found that exhibit 1 was not intended to be all inclusive but rather was intended to demonstrate, by way of examples, the necessity of funding the department because of the amount of work being done by its employees.

 

19.    It is found that while the reference to “attachment #1” in the April 12, 2002 letter does not precisely coincide with the contents of exhibit 1, it is found that exhibit 1 is “attachment #1.” 

 

20.    It is further found, however, that the respondent searched and found exhibit 1 approximately two weeks prior to the hearing in this matter but did not provide the complainant with a copy of it until the February 27, 2006 hearing.

 

21.    At the hearing on this matter, the respondent contended that the complainant already had exhibit 1 because her attorney was provided with a copy in connection with a lawsuit the complainant had filed against the city of Bridgeport.

 

22.    It is found that the complainant was not precluded from making a separate request for “attachment 1” because her attorney may have already been in possession of such document nor is the respondent relieved from its obligation to promptly comply with her request.  

 

23.   It is concluded that the respondent failed to promptly comply with the complainant’s request and thereby violated the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., in that regard.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.      Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness requirements of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

2.      It is noted that any citizen can request access to a public record without the assistance of an attorney.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 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:

 

Bonnie Nichols

442 Surrey Lane

Fairfield, CT 06824

 

Office of Policy and Management,

City of Bridgeport

c/o John H. Barton, Esq.

Office of the City Attorney

999 Broad Street, 2^nd floor

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-593FD/paj/11/13/2006