FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 5, 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)(A), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that on April 17, 2008, the complainant made a written request, by e-mail, for records relating to tree removal from, and the proposed parking lot expansion at, Jail Hill Athletic Field. 

 

3.      It is found that the complainant received no communication from the respondents in response to her request for records.

 

4.      By letter received and filed May 2, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide any of the records she requested, as described in paragraph 2, above.

 

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 the provisions of section 1-212. 

 

6.      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 . . . .”

 

7.       It is found that the records requested by the complainant, described in paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that at the time that the complainant sent her request for records by e-mail to the selectmen’s office in Haddam, the office was having problems with its computers.  It is found, based on the testimony of the respondents’ Information Technology consultant and accompanying exhibits, that the office was unable to receive many of its incoming e-mails.

 

9.      It is found that the missing e-mails had been diverted to an IP address that the respondents’ computers no longer accessed because a new computer system, with a new IP address, had been installed shortly before the date of the complainant’s request.  It is found that to remedy the missing, or diverted, e-mail problem, the private vendor that serviced the respondents’ computer system deleted the unused IP address and its corresponding e-mails without transferring the e-mails to the active IP address or providing them to the respondents in some other way. 

 

10.   It is found, therefore, that the respondents never received the complainant’s e-mail request for copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above.

 

11.  It is found that the respondents first learned of the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2, above, in late June 2008, when the First Selectman received from this Commission a copy of the complainant’s appeal to the FOI Commission.

 

12.  It is found that the respondents did not attempt to gather the records until two days before the hearing in this matter.  It is found that the respondents failed to explain why they did not provide copies of the records the complainant requested once they learned of the request in late June 2008.

 

13.  It is found that the respondents brought to the hearing the records that are responsive to the complainant’s request.  It is further found that the complainant received the records subsequent to the hearing’s close.

 

14.   Nevertheless, it is concluded that because the respondents had no knowledge of the complainant’s April 17, 2008 request for copies of records until receiving notice of the complainant’s appeal to this Commission, the respondents did not violate the §1-212(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint.

 

15.   The Commission advises the respondents, however, that the better practice would have been to provide the complainant with copies of the records she requested as soon as the respondents learned of her request, even though the request came in the form of notice of appeal to the FOI Commission. 

 

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

 

1.   The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 24, 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:

 

Barbara Fernandez

91 Church Hill Road

Haddam, CT 06438

 

Board of Selectmen, Town of

Haddam; and Park and Recreation

Commission, Town of Haddam

c/o Bruno R. Morasutti, Esq.

Luby Olson, P.C. 

405 Broad Street

Meriden, CT 06450

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-309FD/sw/9/30/2008