FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 7, 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 February 5, 2008, the complainant requested from the respondents:

 

a.       “all purchase orders from the Board of Education or any school department to Anthony’s Hardware Store in the last three years including this year;”

 

b.      “all bids for the school bus contract as they were submitted as well as advertisements for these bids;” and

 

c.       “all bids on the school building project to date for all contracts.”

 

3.      It is found that, by letter dated February 12, 2008, the respondents acknowledged receipt of the request described in paragraph 2, above, informed the complainant that: with respect to the request described in paragraph 2.a, responsive

 

 

 

records were available; with respect to the request described in paragraph 2.b, above, the current bus contract was a renegotiated agreement for the term 2005-2010, and therefore no bid information was available; and with respect to the request described in paragraph 2.c, above, responsive records were available at a separate public agency, the School Building Committee. 

 

4.       It is also found that, by letter dated February 25, 2008, the complainant

requested that the respondents provide him with a copy of the original contract for bus

services, plus bids and advertisements related to same.  It is further found that the

complainant provided the respondents with a check for twenty dollars in payment for

copies. 

 

5.      It is found that, by letter dated March 4, 2008, the respondents provided the complainant with copies of forty pages of purchase orders which were responsive to the request described in paragraph 2.a, above, informed the complainant that his payment of twenty dollars had been exhausted, and that the balance of the purchase orders and other responsive records would cost an additional forty-two dollars and fifty cents. 

 

6.  It is found that, upon the complainant’s additional payment, the respondents provided further copies of responsive records to the complainant under cover letter dated April 2, 2008.  It is found that such copies consisted of the remaining purchase orders described in paragraph 2.a, above, and the original contract for bus services, dated July 1, 1988, described in paragraph 4, above.  It is further found that the respondents informed the complainant that no other responsive records were kept on file or maintained by the respondents, but that nevertheless the respondents were providing further records which had not been requested but which relate to the bus contract over the years.  Specifically, such records consisted of: a July 23, 1993 document under Griswold School Department letterhead entitled “Advertisement;” an undated Griswold Public Schools official bid form, with attached document headed “GBE Proposal” which contemplated a September 1993 start of term; an August 2, 1993 letter from a bus company to the then superintendent of schools attaching an alternate proposal to provide transportation services to the respondents; a February 23, 1995 letter from the then superintendent of schools awarding the bus contract for the period 1995-2000; and the bus contract for the period June 2005-2010.

 

7.  It is found that, by letter dated April 22, 2008, the complainant acknowledged receipt of the copies described in paragraph 6, above, and informed the respondents that they had failed to provide bid advertisements, bid submissions, and bid specifications for the current contract, as requested in paragraph 2.b, above.  It is also found that, by such letter, the complainant contended that the respondents had failed to provide a copy of the contract for 2000-2005, or any advertisements or bids for such contract.  However, the Commission notes that the complainant had not previously asked the respondents for copies of such records for the period of 2000-2005. 

 

8.  It is found that, by letter dated April 25, 2008, the respondents informed the complainant that there are no bid documents related to the current contract, that the complainant had not previously requested copies of records related to the contract for 2000-2005, and that the respondents do not maintain or keep on file any advertisements or bids for such contract.  By such letter, however, the respondents did mail to the complainant a copy of the contract for 2000-2005.   It is further found that the complainant did not receive the April 25, 2008 letter of the respondents.[1]

 

9.  By letter dated April 29, 2008, and filed on April 30, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his records requests.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that the records remaining at issue are the requested bids and advertisements described in paragraphs 2.b, and 4, above. 

 

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

 

11.  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 . . .. ”

 

 12.  It is found that, to the extent the requested records are kept on file or maintained by the respondents, such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

13.  It is found that the respondent superintendent personally and thoroughly searched for the requested bids and advertisements, but could not locate any such records. 

 

14.  It is found that the respondents do not keep on file or maintain any bids or advertisements for the original 1988 contract, as described in paragraph 4, above.  It is further found that the current contract was not put out to bid and that, therefore, the bids or advertisements described in paragraph 2.b, above, never existed.   

 

15.  Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the respondents promptly complied with the complainant’s February 5, 2008 and February 25, 2008 records requests, and it is concluded that they did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

 

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 September 10, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Alan Aho

39 Pulaski Street

Jewett City, CT 06351

 

Superintendent of Schools,

Griswold Public Schools 

2 North Main Street

Griswold, CT 06351

 

Board of Education,

Griswold Public Schools

2 North Main Street

Griswold, CT 06351

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-304FD/sw/9/17/2008