FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Joanne Avoletta, | |||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2007-327 | ||
|
Board of Education, Torrington Public Schools, |
|||
| Respondent | February 27, 2008 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 6, 2007, 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 #FIC 2007-233; 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, on a request form dated January 27, 2006, the complainant requested to inspect the respondent’s “legal budget including expenditures and check registers for [the] time period from 7-1-03 until December 31, 2005.” The complainant also requested that such records be “separated for PA and MA.”
3. It is also found that, on a request form dated April 24, 2006, the complainant requested to review all of the respondent’s “legal bills for each law firm” including a “review of expenditures and check registers for [the] time period from December 2005 to March 31, 2005.”
4. It is also found that, on a request form dated May 11, 2006, the complainant requested the following copies from the respondent:
a) Copies of “March 2006 and April 2006 legal bills for Berchem, Moses and Devlin;”
b) Inspection of March 2006 billing from Shipman and Goodman; and
c) Inspection of “pending material read as per Ms. Taylor’s letter dated 4-27-06.”
5. It is also found that, on a request form dated January 16, 2007, the complainant requested that the respondent permit her to “inspect and review all legal parties for all law firms from 2-1-06 until 11-30-06 or until 12-31-06.”
6. It is also found that, in response to the requests described in paragraphs 2 through 5, above, the respondent provided the complainant with access to and/or copies of the records requested, with names of students redacted, and that the complainant paid for copies of any records she was provided and did not object to the redactions made. It is further found that the complainant did not appeal such redactions or fees to the Commission.
7. It is further found that, on a request form dated May 2, 2007, the complainant requested the following from the respondent:
a) “Total Figures for each son, Peter and Matthew Avoletta, from July 2003 until the present for all legal expenditures by the City of Torrington Board of Education for all legal counsel firms, including but not limited to:
i. Sullivan, Schoen, Campane and Connor;
ii. Berchem, Moses, and Devlin;
iii. Shipman and Goodwin, LLP; and
iv. Muschell and Simonecelli;”
b) Inspection of “copies of all related bills and other documents showing the total amount paid for each Peter and Matthew;” and
c) Unredacted copies of records pertaining to the respondent’s legal bills, reflecting the names of the complainant’s sons, which the respondent previously provided the complainant through December 31, 2006.
8. It is found that the complainant indicated on the request form described in paragraph 7, above, that it was not necessary to redact her children’s names because she was giving consent to release the requested information to herself. The complainant also stated on such form that she should not have to pay for copies of the records described in paragraph 7c, above, since the respondent charged her for redacted copies of the requested records prior to the complainant’s May 2, 2007 requests, described in paragraph 7, above.
9. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that she objected to the redaction of her children’s names and not to the redaction of other students whose names may appear on records described in paragraph 7, above. The complainant also claimed that she made other previous requests to the respondent for unredacted copies of the records described in paragraph 7c, above, but she did not submit evidence to support such a claim.
10. It is found that, by letter dated May 18, 2007, the complainant reiterated her May 2, 2007, request, described in paragraph 7, above, and specified that the records described in paragraph 7c, above, should not have the names of her sons redacted.
11. It is found that, by letter dated May 25, 2007, the respondent informed the complainant that: it had no records responsive to the request described in paragraph 7a, above; that the respondent would provide copies of those records described in paragraph 7b, above, including the names of the complainant’s sons, once the complainant provided the written consent of her son who had attained the age of eighteen; and that she would be assessed copying fees for any duplicate copies described in paragraph 7c, above.
12. By letter of complaint dated and filed on June 1, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her request for copies of the requested records and by not allowing the complainant to inspect the records described in paragraph 7, above.
13. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:
“Public 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 under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
14. Section 1-210(a), G.S., states 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…receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
15. Section 1-212(a), G.S., states in relevant part:
Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.
16. With respect to the request described in paragraph 7a, above, it is found that the respondent does not maintain such records. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to such request. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that she wanted the respondent to calculate the total expenditures for her. However, it is axiomatic that the FOI Act does not require an agency to create records.
17. With respect to the request described in paragraph 7b, above, it is found that the respondent maintains such records and that such records are public records, within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
18. It is found that the respondent notified the complainant by letter dated June 21, 2007, that the respondent had received the signed release from the complainant’s son for the unredacted records concerning such son. It is also found that the respondent informed the complainant that it had gathered all of the records described in paragraph 7b, above, redacting all student information except information relating to the complainant’s sons. It is further found that the respondent informed the complainant that such records were ready for her review, and in the alternative, the complainant could pay the $.50 fee per page charge, for copies of any of the requested documents.
19. At the November hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that she did not contest the redactions of other students’ names. The complainant also conceded that she had not visited the offices of the respondent to review the requested documents described in paragraph 18, above, despite the fact that such records had been available for five months. The complainant stated that she had not visited the offices of the respondent to review the records because she was waiting for the hearing in this matter.
20. It is concluded, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, with respect to the request described in paragraph 7b, above.
21. With respect to the request described in paragraph 7c, above, it is found that the respondent offered to supply copies of the requested records to the complainant at the statutory fee. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that she wanted the Commission to order that any monies paid for copies she received prior to May 2, 2007, be refunded to her. However, the Commission notes that the complainant did not appeal the requests described in paragraphs 2, through 5, above, which resulted in the copies received prior to May 2, 2007, within the time limits proscribed by §1-206(b)(1), G.S. Therefore, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the request described in paragraph 7c, above.
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.
2. The Commission recommends that any copies pertaining to complaints concerning the respondent’s children as described in paragraph 7c be provided free of charge.
________________________________
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:
Joanne Avoletta
13 School Street
Torrington, CT 06790
Board of Education,
Torrington Public Schools
c/o Victor M. Muschell, Esq.
Muschell & Simoncelli, LLP
104 Church Street
Torrington, CT 06790
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2007-327FD/paj/3/11/2008