FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Kenneth Lerman,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-241
Gerald Tirozzi, Commissioner, State Department of Education and Dinoo
Dastur, Chief, State Department of Education, Bureau of Certification and
Accreditation,
Respondents December
9, 1987
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on September 21, 1987, 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:
1. The respondents are public agencies within
the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated July 29, 1987 the
complainant made a request of the respondent commissioner for the following:
a. A copy of
the teaching license issued to Nicole Morris;
b. A copy of
any temporary emergency permits issued to Nicole Morris;
c. When the
temporary permit was issued and its expiration date;
d. A copy of
any application(s) submitted by Nicole Morris to the Teacher Certification Unit
in connection with her request for a teaching license;
Docket #FIC 87-241 Page 2
e. A copy of
any substantiating materials submitted to the Teacher Certification Unit by
Nicole Morris; and
f. A copy
of any other materials in the respondents' files concerning Nicole Morris.
3. By letter dated August 5, 1987, the
respondent chief responded to the complainant's request by stating that the
subject of his inquiry, Nicole Morris, holds a Connecticut standard teaching
certificate for teaching French and Spanish, and that this certificate was
issued in January 1986.
4. From denial of access to all of the
requested information, the complainant appealed to the Commission by complaint
filed on August 25, 1987.
5. The complainant requested the imposition of
a civil penalty against the respondents.
6. With respect to paragraph 2a, above, it is
found that the computer that prints out the teaching license certificate is not
programmed to print out a "copy" of that certificate. If the computer was commanded to print out a
certificate for an individual already licensed, a new certificate and
identification number would be issued.
7. It is found that the documents identified at
paragraphs 2b, 2c, 2e and 2f, above, do not exist.
8. It is further found that the complainant was
provided with a copy of the record set forth in paragraph 2d, above, on the
date of the hearing.
9. It is concluded that the respondents
violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by not promptly providing the complainant
with a copy of the application.
10. The Commission notes that this hearing could
have been avoided had the respondents informed the complainant that the other
documents in question do not exist. It
is understandable, under the circumstances, how the complainant could draw
reasonable inferences that there was a violation of the Freedom of Information
Act on the part of the respondents.
Docket #FIC 87-241 Page 3
The following order by
the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondents shall act in
strict compliance with the requirements of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., regarding
the disclosure of public records.
2. The Commission declines to impose a civil
penalty against the respondents as requested by the complainant.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 9,
1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission