FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Carmine R. Fragione

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 89-48

Director, Office of Adult Probation of the State of Connecticut

Respondent July 12, 1989

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 12, 1989, 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., only in respect to its administrative functions as it is found to constitute an office within the judicial department pursuant to §54-103a, G.S.

2. Between February 2, 1989 and February 7, 1989, the complainant made a number of oral requests to the respondent for records relating to an audit conducted in the Bristol Probation Office on February 2, 1989. Specifically, the complainant seeks all auditing material relating directly to the complainant or complainant's work performance including any analyses comparing the complainant with third parties.

3. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant appealed this denial to this Commission by letter dated February 7, 1989 and filed with the Commission on February 9, 1989.

4. The hearing in this matter was limited to determining whether the complainant is entitled to receive records within the scope of his request that existed at the time of the complainant's request.

5. The respondent claimed that the materials sought by the complainant were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

#FIC 89-48 Page 2

6. It is found that the February 2, 1989 audit of the Bristol office in question was conducted by two individuals from the central administrative office of adult probation, and that at a later date a third auditor returned to the Bristol office to complete that audit study.

7. It is found that each of the three auditors took individual notes concerning all facets of the Bristol office's operations based upon his or her observations during his or her audit visit.

8. It is further found that the notes of each auditor were uncirculated and preliminary to a final report that was generated sometime in April, 1989.

9. It is found that the respondent determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(1), G.S.

10. It is therefore concluded that the requested records are exempt from disclosure as preliminary notes pursuant to §1-19(b)(1), G.S., and are not otherwise mandatorily disclosable under the provisions of §1-19(c), G.S.

11. This decision offers no findings with respect to the disclosure of any records generated after the date of the complainant's appeal to this Commission.

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.

PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

CARMINE R. FRAGIONE, 225 North Main Street, Suite 102-A, Bristol, CT 06010

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ADULT PROBATION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, c/o Martin R. Libbin, Esquire, Office of the Chief Court Administrator, 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 12, 1989.

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission