FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 26, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that by letter dated October 12, 2007, the complainant made a request to the respondent Elizabeth E. Feser (hereinafter “Dr. Feser”) for access to inspect, and possibly make copies of all documents used in the search for the position of principal of Roger Wolcott School and director of human resources (hereinafter “request for personnel search records”). 

 

3.      It is found that by a separate letter dated October 12, 2007, the complainant made a request to Dr. Feser for a copy of any letters written in response to three letters he wrote to Dr. Feser in 2003.  

 

4.      It is found that by another letter dated October 12, 2007 to the respondents Milo W. Peck and Paul J. Panos, the complainant requested a copy of the written explanation from Dr. Feser as to whether it was possible for supplemental students, if accepted to a certain educational institution, to assume full responsibility for any fees or payments connected to their attendance normally paid for by their home school district.

 

5.      By letter dated and filed on October 23, 2007, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to not only comply with, but also to respond to his records requests.  The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondents.

 

6.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“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.

 

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

 

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, . . . or receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

8.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

9.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

10.   It is found that by letter dated November 6, 2007, Dr. Feser responded to the complainant’s request for the personnel search records, described in paragraph 2, above, and that on November 14, 2007, the complainant was provided with access to inspect and copy the records responsive to that request.

 

11.   At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that while he was eventually provided with access to the records responsive to the records request described in paragraph 2, above, Dr. Feser’s response, and eventual provision of access to the requested records, was not prompt as required by the FOI Act.

 

12.   It is found that Dr. Feser failed to respond to the complainant’s request for the personnel search records, described in paragraph 2, above, for 25 days and did not offer an explanation for the delay. 

 

13.   At the hearing on this matter, the respondents indicated that the complainant’s request for the personnel search records should have been complied with sooner.

 

14.   It is found that Dr. Feser failed to promptly comply with the complainant’s request for the personnel search records, described in paragraph 2, above, and it is concluded that she, thereby, violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

15.   With respect to the complainant’s requests described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain any records responsive to those requests.

 

16.   At the hearing on this matter, the complainant contended that the respondents should have responded within four business days to the requests described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, and informed him that there were no responsive records.

 

17.   Section 1-206(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request, except when the request is determined to be subject to subsections (b) and (c) of section 1-214, in which case such denial shall be made, in writing, within ten business days of such request.  Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.

 

18.   Section 1-206(a), G.S., requires a public agency to provide a written response denying a request for public records, within the applicable number of days and permits a requester to invoke his right to file a complaint in the event an agency fails to comply with a request within the applicable number of days - without having to wait indefinitely for compliance that may never be forthcoming.  Nothing in §1-206(a), G.S., requires a public agency to provide a written response to a request for public records informing the requester that there are no responsive records. 

 

19.   It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by failing to respond to the complainant’s requests described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above.

 

20.   Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant’s request for a civil penalty is denied.

 

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

 

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

 

2.      The remainder of the complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

3.      Although the Commission concluded that there was no violation of §1-206(a), G.S., in this case, nonetheless, it is both a better practice and common courtesy to respond to requesters in order to prevent unnecessary complaints and hearings that waste valuable state resources.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 9, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Bradshaw Smith

23 Ludlow Road

Windsor, CT 06095

           

Elizabeth E. Feser, Superintendent

of Schools, Windsor Public Schools;

Milo W. Peck, Paul J. Panos, as Members,

Board of Education, Windsor Public

Schools; and Board of Education,

Windsor Public Schools

c/o Gary Brochu, Esq. and

Paul M. Shapiro, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One Constitution Plaza

Hartford, CT 06103-1919

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-574FD/paj/4/14/2008