FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Susan DeFrancesco,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 94-330
State of Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection,
Respondent August 23, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on April 21, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent
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
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By
letter of complained filed September 19, 1994, the complainant appealed to the
Commission, alleging that she did not receive the information requested in her
August 22, 1994 letter to the respondent.
3. It
is found that the complainant by letters dated August 22, 1994 and August 31,
1994, asked the respondent for:
a. the
date the respondent received a newspaper article contained in the respondent's
files;
b. the
names of the individuals who wrote notes concerning the article;
c. the
name of the person who sent the article to the respondent;
d. documentation
on man-hours of the respondent's employees to investigate the complainant's
three exotic cats, including actual dates and time of investigation, what was
actually investigated, and the methods of investigation;
e. a
written report of the money, materials and man-hours spent on the investigation
of the complainant, including phone calls; and
Docket #FIC 94-330 Page
2
f. all
names of the respondent's employees and other individuals present on the
complainant's property when the exotic cats were confiscated.
4. At
the request of the complainant, the Commission takes administrative notice of
its record and final decision in Docket #FIC 94-69, Susan DeFrancesco against
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; and at the request
of the respondent, the Commission takes administrative notice of its record and
final decision in Docket #FIC 94-178, Susan DeFrancesco against State of
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
5. At
the hearing on this complaint, the respondent objected to the complainant's
representative, which objection was overruled.
6. It
is found that the respondent by letters dated September 1 and September 8, 1995
indicatd that it would review its files and provide the complainant with an
appropriate response.
7. It
is found that the respondent by letter dated December 20, 1994 answered the
complainant's questions and provided certain documents responsive to her
requests.
8. It
is found that many of the complainant's questions related to a newspaper
article that had been obtained from the respondent's general files on
information concerning dangerous animals, and anonymous notes written on that
article.
9. It
is found that the respondent made a diligent effort to answer the complainant's
questions, including a series of meetings with division directors and other
employees, and searches of records in various offices and locations; and that
the respondent went beyond the requirements of the FOI Act in seeking answers
that were not contained in records.
10. It
is found that the respondent has no records responsive to that portion of the
complainant's request described in paragraph 3a, above, and does not know when
the article was received.
11. It
is found that the respondent has no records responsive to that portion of the
complainant's request described in paragraph 3b, above, and does not know who
authored the unsigned notes.
12. It
is found that the respondent has no records responsive to that portion of the
complainant's request described in paragraph 3c, above, and does not know who
provided the article to the respondent.
Docket #FIC 94-330 Page
3
13. With
respect to that portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3d,
above, it is found that the respondent does not track the time spent on
particular matters, but has provided the comlainant with copies of time and
activity records for certain of the respondent's employees who the respondent
knows were working on the investigation of the complainant on certain days.
14. It
is found that the investigative reports provided to the complainant indicate
the dates and times of the investigation, and what was investigated.
15. It
is found that the records provided to the complainant, although they do not
reflect all man-hours spent on the investigation, are responsive to the
complainant's request and are all the responsive records that the respondent
can reasonably find.
16. With
respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3e,
above, it is found that the respondent has no records other than the time and
activity sheets provided to the complainant.
17. With
respect to the portion of the complainant's request described in paragraph 3f,
above, it is found the investigative documents provided to the complainant are
the only documents that the respondent can reasonably find that are responsive
to the complainant's request.
18. The
complainant maintains that the respondent must have other records relating to
her request.
19. It
is found, however, that the complainant was not denied copies of or access to
any of the respondent's records.
20. The
complainant also maintains that she was not provided a copy of a videotape made
of the confiscation of her animals.
21. It
is found, however, that the videotape was not requested and is not in the
respondent's custody or control.
22. The
complainant also maintains that the records she received were not provided
promptly.
23. It
is found, however, that the amount of time that the respondent took to identify
responsive records, locate them, and to answer the complainant's questions, was
not unreasonable.
24. It
is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act.
Docket #FIC 94-330 Page
4
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 August 23, 1995.
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-330 Page
5
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:
Ms. Susan DeFrancesco
P.O. Box 42
Wilton, CT 06897
State of Connecticut,
Department of Environmental Protection
c/o Eliot D. Prescott, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Patricia Farrell
37 North Road
Ashford, CT 06278
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission