FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Chris Powell and Journal Inquirer,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 89-301
State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission,
Respondent May 9, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 25, 1990, 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. By letter dated June 10, 1989 and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission ("FOIC") on July 3, 1989, the complainants requested access to the performance evaluation of Waterbury State's Attorney John Connelly written by Chief State's Attorney John Kelly and submitted to the FOIC for in camera review as part of FOIC contested case docket #FIC 88-272.
3. By letter dated July 14, 1990, the respondent denied this request.
4. It is found that contested case docket #FIC 88-272 is pending on appeal to the superior court, and the FOIC has granted a stay of execution of its order in contested case docket #FIC 88-272 pending the final outcome of all appeals.
5. The complainants claim that once the respondent determined that documents identified in paragraph 2, above, constituted public records subject to disclosure under the FOI Act, then the respondent should have disclosed those documents in its possession pursuant to its in camera inspection.
6. The respondent claims that as an administrative tribunal, it is not empowered to deprive parties before it
Docket #FIC 89-301 Page 2
of their statutory rights of appeal, and that to disclose documents taken in camera prior to such appeal would render such appeal meaningless and would impair the orderly administration of justice.
7. It is found that the Connecticut Supreme Court has interpreted the FOI statutes to permit the respondent to conduct in camera inspections in the case of Somers Board of Education v. FOIC, 210 Conn. 590 (1989).
8. Pursuant to the above-referenced authority, the Commission concludes that it would be an abuse of authority for the respondent to disclose records taken for in camera inspection prior to full appellate review where sought by the parties before the respondent.
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 May 9, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-301 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:
CHRIS POWELL AND JOURNAL INQUIRER
306 Progress Drive
Manchester, CT 06040
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
c/o Victor R. Perpetua
97 Elm Street-Rear
Hartford, CT 06106
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission