FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Richard R. Lindquist,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-15
Vice President and Provost,
University of Connecticut Health
Center and Assistant to the
Vice President, University of
Connecticut Health Center,
Respondent January 10, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 13, 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
dated November 30, 1994, the complainant requested of the respondents copies of
all "the financial accounts of the FACS facility for the period of time
that Dr. Goldschneider was head of the facility" and copies of the FACS
account review.
3. By letter
dated December 1, 1995, the respondents acknowledged receipt of the
complainant's request and indicated that they would gather together the
documents requested for the complainant.
4. On
December 9, 1994, the respondents provided the complainant with certain of the
requested financial account records covering a period of approximately one year
only of the many years of records the complainant was seeking.
5. By letter
dated December 15, 1994, the complainant stated that he was not satisfied with
the records provided by the respondents.
Particularly, the complainant indicated that he continued to seek
records beyond the time period provided to him.
Docket #FIC 95-15 Page
2
6. By letter
dated December 23, 1994, the respondents again responded to the complainant,
stating that they were working on providing the remainder of the financial
account records. With respect to the
account review records, the respondents stated that they had not found any
records of such a review.
7. By letter
dated January 12, 1995 and filed on January 18, 1995, the complainant appealed
to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information ("FOI") Act by denying him copies of all of the requested
records.
8. It is
found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public records
within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
9. Subsequent
to the filing of the complaint in this matter, there were additional
communications between the parties, in which the respondents provided records
covering approximately an additional eight years and inquired as to whether the
complainant wanted additional records from the earlier years requested that
were archived and stored off-site. The
respondents thereafter provided the complainant with additional records.
10. Further,
in the subsequent communications between the parties, the complainant began to
identify specific records that he was seeking, such as purchase orders or
requisitions for specific categories of items and "income logs"
related to the FACS facility. The
respondents attempted to comply with the complainant's specific requests and
provided him with additional records in response thereto.
11. However,
at the hearing in this matter, the complainant alleged that the respondents'
failure to provide accesss to all of the requested records within four days
violated the FOI Act and that the respondents to date had not fully complied
with his request.
12. The
respondents contend that they have in good faith attempted to comply with the
complainant's request, but that they are at a loss to understand precisely what
additional records the complainant is seeking.
They also state that they are ready and willing to comply with the
complainant's request to the furthest extent possible.
13. It is
found that although there apparently were communication problems between the
respondents and the complainant, the respondents made a good faith attempt to
comply with the complainant's request, in accordance with 1-19(a) and
1-15(a), G.S.
14.
Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the
FOI Act with respect to the complainant's request in this matter.
Docket #FIC 95-15 Page
3
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 without prejudice.
2. In light
of the respondents' willingness to provide the complainant with all the records
he is seeking, the Commission encourages the parties to continue communicating
to that end. If a dispute arises with
respect to the disclosure of any particular records, the Commission shall
retain jurisdiction to consider such a dispute upon the filing of a proper
complaint.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 10, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-15 Page
4
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:
Richard R. Lindquist
Room L1017
Department of Pathology
UCONN Health Center
Farmington, CT 06030
Vice President and Provost,
University of Connecticut Health Center and Assistant to the Vice President,
University of Connecticut Health Center
c/o William N. Kleinman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
University of Connecticut
Health Center
Farmington, CT 06030-3800
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission