FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Leo Patenaude,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 88-245
State of
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles, Adjudications Unit and Hearing Reporter
Richard Pieczarka,
Respondents October 12, 1988
The above-captioned mattter was
heard as a contested case on August 12, 1988, 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. On
or about March 14, 1986 the State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles
("DMV") held a hearing on allegations, by the complainant, against
Patenaude's Garage.
3. By
letter dated May 19, 1988 the complainant made a request of the respondent
hearing reporter for a copy of the transcript of the March 14, 1986 hearing.
4. On
or about May 26, 1988 the respondent hearing reporter replied to the
complainant's request, stating that the hearing record had never been
transcribed, but that if the complainant wished to have a transcript, one would
be prepared at a total estimated cost of $112.50.
5. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on June 28, 1988 the complainant
appealed to the Commission, alleging the respondents' failure to provide him
with a copy of the requested transcript.
The complainant also alleged that the respondent hearing reporter
improperly requested that payment for the transcript be made directly to him.
6. It
is found that as of the date of the complainant's request, no written
transcript of the March 14, 1986 hearing existed.
Docket #FIC
88-245 Page Two
7. It
is further found that the respondent hearing reporter's estimate of the cost of
the transcript was based upon the actual cost of transcribing the document, in
accordance with 1-15, G.S.
8. It
is further found that, pursuant to a policy in effect since January 27, 1988,
most transcripts of DMV hearings are prepared by hearing reporters working on
their own time. Consequently, hearing
reporters are paid directly for such work.
9. It
is found that the complainant was offered a transcript of the March 14, 1986
hearing at the actual cost of transcription, in accordance with 1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S.
10. It
is further found that the respondent adjudications unit's policy, which results
in direct payment to hearing reporters, does not violate any provision of the
Freedom of Information Act.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complainant.
1. The
complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of October 12, 1988.
ÿ
Catherine H.
Lynch
Acting Clerk of the Commission