FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                FINAL DECISION

 

Michael E. Board, Marie Amato and

Killingworth Taxpayers Association,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-202

 

Charles F. Sweetman, Superintendent

of Schools, Regional School District

#17 and Gary Shettle, Finance Director,

Regional School District #17,

 

                        Respondents                                                     December 18, 1996

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 11, 1996, at which time the complainants 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 §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that by letter dated April 24, 1996 the complainants requested that the respondent superintendent allow them to use their copier at the respondents’ office to make copies of public records.

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated April 25, 1996 the respondent superintendent denied the request, but offered to make and provide copies upon request, at a cost of $.25 per page.

 

4.  By letter of complaint dated May 20, 1996 and filed with the Commission on May 23, 1996, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by forbidding them to use their copier at the respondents’ Central Office to make copies of records.

 

5.  It is found that at all times pertinent to this appeal, the respondents have provided the complainants with copies of records requested at a cost of $.25 per page in accordance with the provisions of §1-15(a), G.S.

Docket #FIC 1996-202                                                                                               Page 2

 

 

6.  Consequently, the sole issue in this appeal is whether the respondents’ denial of the complainants’ request to use their own copier violates the FOI Act.

 

7.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

…every person shall have the right to inspect … [public] records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

 

8.  Section 1-15(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

 

9.  The complainants contend that by denying them the use of their copier the respondents are diminishing or curtailing their rights granted pursuant to §1-19(a), G.S.

 

10.  Although nothing in §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., prohibits a public agency from permitting a requester to use the requester’s copier in complying with the copy provisions of those subsections, it is concluded that nothing in those subsections mandates the use of the requesters’ copier.

 

11.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-15(a) and 1-19, G.S., when they denied the complainants’ request to use their copier to make copies of records.

 

              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.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 18, 1996.

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 1996-202                                                                                              Page 3

 

 

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:

 

Michael E. Board, Marie Amato and Killingworth Taxpayers Association

c/o  Elizabeth Allen, Advocate

330 Walkley Hill Road

Haddam, CT 06438

 

Charles F. Sweetman, Superintendent of Schools, Regional School District #17

and Gary Shettle, Finance Director, Regional School District #17

c/o Kevin M. McGlinchey, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One American Row

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC1996-202/FD/eal/122096