FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 11, 2007, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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.  It is found that, by letter dated November 22, 2006, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with certain records “collected and evaluated” as the basis for a recommendation to the State Traffic Commission that a “No Thru Trucks” prohibition not be established on Morse Street and Armory Street in Hamden.  Specifically, the complainant requested a copy of “all handwritten notes, all correspondence, emails, telephone messages, faxes, conversations at personal meetings, form letters, site engineers’ notes and/or reports, summaries, sketches, and any and all information generated over the course of the study relative to this request ….” (the “requested records”).

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated November 22, 2006, the respondent provided certain records to the complainant, in response to the November 22, 2006 request.

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated December 1, 2006, the complainant informed the respondent that her response described in paragraph 3, above, was inadequate, and renewed his request for the requested records.  

 

5.  It is found that, on December 4, 2006, in response to the December 1, 2006, letter, which was received by the respondent on December 4, 2006, the respondent telephoned the complainant and offered to provide the complainant with additional records which the respondent believed the complainant would find helpful.  It is also found that, during such conversation, the respondent offered the complainant the opportunity to come to her office to view all relevant files. 

           

6.  It is found that, by letter dated December 5, 2006, the respondent provided the complainant with additional records.

 

7.  It is found that, by letter dated December 7, 2006, the complainant again renewed his request for the records described in paragraph 2, above.

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated December 8, 2006, the respondent informed the complainant that all information in her files had been provided to him.

 

9.  Thereafter, by letter dated December 13, 2006 and filed on December 14, 2006, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

            10.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

‘[p]ublic records or files’ means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract…whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

11.  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.

 

12.  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.”

 

13.  It is found that the records provided to the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

14.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant acknowledged that the respondent had provided him with copies of all records she maintains that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above.  It is found that the gravamen of the complainant’s complaint is that certain standards should, but do not, exist for the determination as to whether a request for a “no through truck” prohibition should be approved or not approved.      

 

15.  It is found that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over whether or not the respondent should have such standards, nor does the Commission have the authority to order the respondent to create records. 

 

16.  It is found that the respondent promptly provided the complainant with all records she maintains that are responsive to the requests described in paragraphs 2, 4, and 7, above.

 

17.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, 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 July 25, 2007.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Peter F. Villano

State Representative

133 Armory Street

Hamden, CT 06517

 

Executive Director, State Traffic

Commission, State of Connecticut,

Department of Transportation

c/o Alice M. Sexton, Esq.

Principal Attorney

Office of Legal Services

Department of Transportation

2800 Berlin Turnpike

PO Box 317546

Newington, CT 06131-7546

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2006-665FD/paj/7/26/2007