FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert S. Mack,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 90-186
State of Connecticut, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,
Respondent(s) January 23, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 7, 1990, 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 May 17, 1990, and filed with the Commission on May 18, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to respond to his written request for all of the documents and information contained in the case file known as Mack v. City of Hartford, Police Department, CHRO No. 8810172 (hereinafter "case").
3. The complainant's document request was delivered to the respondent by certified mail on May 1, 1990.
4. The respondent failed to respond to the complainant's document request.
5. It is concluded that the requested documents are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket #FIC 90-186 Page 2
6. The respondent maintains that while the complainant is entitled to receive copies of all documents which he submitted to the respondent which became part of his case file, 46a-83(b), G.S., prohibits disclosure of the entire contents of the case file of a pending complaint of discriminatory practice filed before January 1, 1990.
7. The respondent claims that 46a-83(b), G.S., as amended by Public Act 89-332, restricts what may be published or disclosed in a CHRO case file to the facts, complaint, and terms of conciliation once the complaint has been dismissed or adjusted.
8. Moreover, the respondent contends that 46a-83(b), G.S., mandates that the information contained in the case file cannot be released to the complainant at this time because the respondent commission is reconsidering review of the respondent's case.
9. It is found that Mr. Mack's CHRO complaint was filed with the respondent commission prior to January 1, 1990.
10. It is found that in accordance with Public Act 89-332, 6, complaints filed with the CHRO before January 1, 1990 must be resolved pursuant to 46a-83(b), G.S., which states in relevant part:
"No [CHRO] commissioner or investigator may disclose what
has occurred in the course of such endeavors provided the
commission may publish the facts in the case and any
complaint which has been dismissed and the terms of
conciliation when a complaint has been adjusted."
11. It is concluded that 46a-83(b),G.S., prohibits disclosure of the contents of a complainant's case file except for the facts, the complaint, and terms of conciliation once the complaint has been dismissed or adjusted.
12. It is found that by letter dated March 19, 1990, the complainant was notified that the preliminary recommendation regarding his case was that the matter be dismissed with a finding of "no cause."
Docket #FIC 90-186 Page 3
13. It is found that by letter dated May 10, 1990 the respondent issued its final recommendation and informed the complainant that to apply for reconsideration of the disposition a written application specifically stating the grounds upon which the application is based must be filed in any CHRO office within seven days of the date of the letter.
14. It is found that the complainant orally requested reconsideration of the respondent's preliminary findings in the case prior to the issuance of the May 10, 1990 letter of final recommendation by the respondent.
15. It is found that the complainant did not comply with the respondent's requirements for requesting reconsideration of the case as set forth in the respondent's letter dated May 10, 1990.
16. It is found that the respondent's decision to "review" the complainant's request for reconsideration was made after receipt of an order to show cause and notice of hearing from this Commission.
17. It is found that the complainant never received a copy of the respondent's August 29, 1990 letter informing him that his case would be reviewed for reconsideration at the respondent's September 12, 1990 meeting.
18. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19, G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with the information described in paragraph 10, above, after the expiration of the seven day time-frame for formal application for reconsideration.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of the documents described in paragraphs 6 and 11 of the findings, above.
Docket #FIC 90-186 Page 4
2. Henceforth the respondent commission shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-186 Page 5
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:
ROBERT S. MACK
385 Windsor Avenue
Windsor, CT 06095
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
c/o Deborah Green, Esq.
90 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission