FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Gary R. Duclos,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-189

 

Killingly Town Manager,

 

                        Respondent                  October 10, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 10, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 May 11, 1990, the complainant requested the specific details resulting in his suspension as dog warden of the town of Killingly as well as the details of other recent matters that led to the decision to suspend him.

 

            3.  By letter filed with this Commission on May 21, 1990, the complainant appealed the respondent's alleged denial of this request.

 

            4.  It is found that the complainant was provided with a list of the wrongdoings he was accused of by the town.

 

            5.  It is also found that on August 1, 1990, the complainant met with the respondent and the assistant town manager for a discussion of the accusations against him, and the only written records of that meeting are the letter of suspension to the complainant and a report sent to the respondent and members of the town concil concerning the incidents in question.

 

            6.  It is found that the complainant was provided with the records identified in paragraph 5, above, which are the only  records in existence concerning the complainant's suspension.

 

Docket #FIC 90-189                           Page 2

 

            7.  At hearing, the plaintiff claimed that he also desired copies of town ordinances, written rules and records of the respondents past practices concerning such allegations.

 

            8.  It is found, however, that the complainant failed to include the items identified in paragraph 7, above, in his May 11, 1990 request; accordingly, these items do not fall within the scope of this complaint.

 

            9.  It is concluded that the respondent is not in violation of the Freedom of Information Act with respect to this case.

 

            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 October 10, 1990.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-189                           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:

GARY R. DUCLOS

566 Baily Hill Road

Dayville, CT 06241

 

KILLINGLY TOWN MANAGER

172 Main Street

P.O. Box 6000

Killingly, CT 06239

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission