FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

August B. Hunicke and Precision

Timer Company, Inc.,

 

                        Complainants,

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-145

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Environmental Protection,

 

                        Respondent                                                      October 9, 1996

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 14, 1996, at which time the complainants 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.         It is found that by letter dated April 17, 1996, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with fifty-eight items of records and answers to questions, pertaining to a January 29, 1988 inspection report compiled by Melissa Blais, an employee of the respondent (hereinafter “ requested records”).

 

3.         Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated April 27, 1996 and filed on May 1, 1996, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the federal and state Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Acts by denying them access to the requested  records.

 

4.         This Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to enforcing the state and not the federal FOI Act.

 

5.         It is found that the respondent maintains records responsive to some of the complainants’ request, described in paragraph 2, above, and provided the complainants with access to such records at the hearing into this matter.

 

Docket #FIC 1996-145                                                                                   Page 2

 

 

6.         It is found that the records described in paragraph 5, above, are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

7.         It is found that the complainants are seeking answers to questions pertaining to the determinations and conclusions contained in the report, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

8.         It is found that the respondent has provided the complainants with access to the records it maintains that are responsive to the complainants’ request, described in paragraph 2, above, and is not required under the FOI Act to answer questions of the complainants or to compile records for the complainants that do not exist.

 

9.         At the hearing into this matter, the respondent indicated that it did not respond to the complainants’ request, as described in paragraph 2, above, because such request was harassing, and for records previously provided to the complainants.

 

10.       It is found that since January 1993, the complainants have made thirty-four separate requests to the respondent, for two hundred and ninety-seven records and answers to questions pertaining to the report, described in paragraph 2, above.

 

            11.       It is found that the respondent has previously provided the complainants with copies of over six hundred pages of records in response to the requests, described in paragraph 10, above.

 

12.       It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to answer questions contained in the complainants’ request, described in paragraph 2, above, however, it violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with access to a copy of the records it maintained, as described in paragraph 5, above.

 

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

 

1.         Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

Docket #FIC 1996-145                                                                                   Page 3

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 1996.

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 199-145                                                                                                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:

 

August B. Hunicke

Precision Timer Co., Inc.

47 Westbrook Industrial Park Road

Westbrook, CT 06498

 

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection

c/o Richard F. Webb, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

PO  Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission