FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Lewis Harper,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-311
Chairman, Guilford Board of Police Commissioners,
Respondent June 11, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 22, 1993, 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. On or about September 24, 1992, the complainant sent a letter by certified mail to the respondent requesting a copy of the minutes of the September 9, 1992 meeting of the Guilford Board of Police Commissioners (herinafter "September request"). The complainant indicated that he was seeking the "actual" minutes of the September 9, 1992 meeting, not the "outline" of the minutes that was on file at the town clerk's office.
3. By letter filed on October 7, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to respond to his September request.
4. It is found that the "outline" of the September 9, 1992 minutes, as described by the complainant in his September request, are the minutes of the subject meeting obtained by the complainant from the town clerk sometime prior to his September request.
5. It is found that by letter dated October 8, 1992 but not signed until October 22, 1992, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant's letter and indicated that the minutes on file at the town clerk's office are the actual minutes of the September 9, 1992 meeting of the Guilford Board of Police Commissioners.
Docket #FIC 92-311 Page 2
6. It is found that the minutes for the subject September 9, 1992 meeting indicate that the respondent convened in executive session to discuss a civilian complaint investigation and that upon reconvening in public session, unanimously voted that proper police procedure was followed and not to sustain the civilian complaint.
7. It is found that the civilian complaint discussed in executive session at the September 9, 1992 meeting was a complaint filed by the complainant against a Guilford police officer and that the complainant was interested in learning more about the discussion concerning his complaint.
8. It is found that no other minutes exist pertaining to or describing the Guilford Board of Police Commissioner's discussion of the complainant's complaint, other than the minutes that the complainant received for the subject September 9, 1992 meeting from the town clerk.
9. It is found however, although there are no other minutes pertaining to the executive session discussion of the complainant's complaint, that the respondent had an obligation under 1-21i(a), G.S., to respond in writing to the complainant's September request within four business days.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21i(a), G.S., with respect to responding to requests for copies of public records.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 9, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-311 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:
Lewis Harper
14 Putzel Avenue
Guilford, CT 06437
Edwin Lombard, Chairman, Guilford Board of Police Commissioners
33 Lovers Lane
Guilford, CT 06437
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission