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 89-94
Chairman, Department of Pathology, University of Connecticut Health Center,
Respondent March 14, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 28, 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.
2. By letter of complaint dated March 13, 1989 and filed with the Commission on March 14, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his request for records of the Pathology Department faculty salaries had been denied.
3. It is found that, by memorandum dated March 6, 1989, the complainant requested of the respondent records of the salaries of all Pathology Department faculty before and after the most recent salary increment, and records of the guidelines relevant to the salary increments.
4. It is found that, by letter dated March 9, 1989, the respondent provided the requested guidelines, but denied the complainant's request for salary records.
5. It is also found that, by memorandum dated March 27, 1989, the respondent indicated to the complainant that he could obtain the requested salary records from the Assistant Dean for Finance of the School of Medicine.
6. It is found that the complainant obtained most of the requested salary records from the Assistant Dean for Finance, but received no records concerning the salaries of three faculty members, including the respondent.
Docket #FIC 89-94 Page 2
7. At the hearing, the respondent provided the complainant with the salary records of the three remaining faculty members.
8. The respondent maintains that the complaint is now moot, since the complainant has received all of the requested records.
9. It is concluded, however, that the belated receipt of the requested records, most of which were supplied by the Assistant Dean for Finance, resolves neither the issue of the timeliness of the provision of the requested records nor the issue of respondent's present and future obligation to himself provide copies of public records he maintains.
10. The respondent maintains that, since the information sought by the complainant was also available from the records of the Assistant Dean of Finance, the respondent should not himself be required to provide the requested salary records to the complainant.
11. It is found that the requested records are maintained in different forms by both the respondent and the Assistant Dean of Finance.
12. It is concluded, however, that the availability of records from another public agency does not relieve the respondent of his obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.
13. The respondent also maintains the the requested records are exempt from disclosure under 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., which provides in relevant part:
Nothing in sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, and 1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, shall be deemed in any manner to (1) affect the ... rights of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this state ....
14. It is found that a state court action and a federal court action are pending between the complainant and the respondent.
15. It is also found that both suits were filed on or about May 21, 1989, well after the denial of the complainant's request in this matter, and that the requested records are not the subjects of discovery in either suit.
16. It is concluded therefore that 1-19b(b)(1) is inapplicable to this matter, since the rights of the litigants under the laws of discovery are not affected by the disclosure of the requested records, which in any event have already been received by the complainant.
Docket #FIC 89-94 Page 3
17. It is further concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a) and 1-15, G.S, by failing to provide promptly upon request the salary records of departmental faculty.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a) regarding the duty of all public agencies, including single-member public agencies such as the respondent, to provide copies of public records promptly upon request.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 14, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-94 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:
DR. RICHARD R. LINDQUIST
Associate Professor
Pathology Department
Room 1017
UConn Health Center
Farmington, CT 06032
CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER
c/o William N. Kleinman, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
UConn Health Center
263 Farmington Avenue
Farmington, CT 06032
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission