FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

George W. Saba,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-325

 

State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice,

 

                        Respondent                  April 27, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 15, 1994, 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 1-19c, G.S., with respect to its administrative functions.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on December 1, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying his request for public records.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated November 19, 1993, the complainant requested copies of the following records:

 

            a)         Form DCJ-55 payroll attendance reports covering the period July 22, 1983 through June 1, 1993;

            b)         Form DCJ-55.1, bi-weekly attendance report compensatory time earned covering the period July 22, 1983 through June 1, 1993;

            c)         Division policy statements and procedures relative to compensatory time earned and used;

            d)         Division communications relative to compensatory time earned and used;

            e)         Division policy statements and procedures relative to portal-to-portal travel;

            f)          Division communications relative to portal-to-portal travel;

            g)         Division policy statements and procedures relative to the Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA); and,

            h)         Divison communications relative to the FLSA.

 

Docket #FIC 93-325                           Page 2

 

            4.  The records identified in paragraphs 3 a - h, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            5.  It is found that the respondent made no response to the complainant until December 22, 1993, when the respondent indicated by letter that more time was needed to retrieve the records identified at paragraphs 3 a and b, above; that the executive assistant state's attorney was "unclear" about what the complainant sought pursuant to paragraphs 3 c - f, above; and that the executive assistant state's attorney was not aware of any items identified in paragraphs 3 g - h, above.

 

            6.  It is concluded that the respondent's failure to respond to the complainant's request within four business days of such request constitutes a violation of 1-21i(a), G.S.

 

            7.  It is found that by follow-up letter dated December 28, 1993, the respondent indicated that in its attempt to comply with the complainant's request identified in paragraph 3, above, it had addressed all inquiries except the items identified at paragraphs 3 g and h, above, because the executive assistant state's attorney was unable to locate any material addressing those requests after having made inquiry of various administrative staff members.

 

            8.  It is found that the complainant secured a copy of a record responsive to the item identified in paragraph 3 g, above, from a source other than the respondent, which occurrence caused the complainant to believe that the respondent's search was deficient.

 

            9.  It is concluded that, although the respondent eventually compiled 355 pages of records in response to the complainant's request, the respondent's delays under the facts of this case constitute a violation of the promptness provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.

 

            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 forward to the complainant a notarized affidavit outlining the measures taken by that office in its search for records responsive to the complainant's request.

 

            2.  Should the respondent discover that the measures taken in its previous search were in some way deficient, the respondent shall take whatever steps it deems appropriate to assure that its total search efforts are complete and diligent. 

 

Docket #FIC 93-325                           Page 3

 

Any further search or inquiry made pursuant to this paragraph should likewise be set forth in affidavit form to the complainant.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 27, 1994.

 

                                                                  

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-325                           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:

Mr. George W. Saba

80 Krivanec Road

Willington, CT 06279

 

State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice

c/o John F. Cronan, Esq.

Executive Assistant State's Attorney

340 Quinnipiac Street

P.O. Box 5000

Wallingford, CT 06492

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission