FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Ethan Book, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-360
State of Connecticut, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,
Respondent July 12, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 17, 1995, 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. It is found that by letter dated September 19, 1994, the complainant requested from the respondent certain statistical data concerning the number of claims filed with the respondent over the last ten years.
3. It is found that by letter dated September 21, 1994, the complainant requested from the respondent:
a. a listing of all "contacts" made by any official or staff employee of the respondent with any other person or entity regarding Case No. 9520059, E. Book vs. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., a claim previously filed by the complainant with the respondent, hereinafter ("the CHRO claim"); and
b. copies of all notes of telephone messages, conversations and correspondence.
4. On October 12, 1994, the complainant filed this appeal with the Commission alleging that the respondent had not effectively responded to his September 19 and 21, 1994 requests.
Docket #FIC 94-360 Page 2
5. It is found that by letter dated October 13, 1994, the respondent provided the complainant with certain data which is responsive to the complainant's September 19, 1994 request, as described in paragraph 2, above.
6. It is found that by letter dated October 5, 1994, the respondent, in response to the complainant's September 21, 1994 request provided the complainant with certain records concerning action taken on the CHRO claim, as well as copies of records contained in the CHRO claim file.
7. At the hearing in this matter the complainant indicated that the outstanding issues to be addressed with respect to this complaint are:
a. Whether the respondent provided the complainant with prompt access to records requested in his September 19, 1994 request, as described in paragraph 2, above; and
b. Whether the respondent provided the complainant with access to "contacts" requested in his September 21, 1994 request, as described in paragraph 3a., above.
8. With respect to the issue of promptness, as described in paragraph 7a., above, it is found that the requested data are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
9. It is found that the respondent's only contact with the complainant concerning his September 19, 1994 request was on October 13, 1994, at which time the requested data was made available.
10. The respondent acknowledges that it did not respond to the complainant within four business days.
11. It is concluded that the respondent's provision of access was not prompt within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S., and therefore that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S.
12. With respect to the issue of access to "contacts", as described in paragraph 7b., above, it is found that the complainant believes that certain inter-agency "contacts" occurred between employees of the respondent and other state agencies, concerning the CHRO claim.
13. It is found that the complainant's belief that contacts occurred between employees of the respondent and other state agencies, by his own testimony, is based on speculation and is not supported by any evidence.
Docket #FIC 94-360 Page 3
14. The complainant contends that an employee's memory of any such "contacts" is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
15. It is found that the respondent does not maintain any records of "contacts" besides those records already provided to the complainant, as indicated in paragraph 6, above.
16. It is concluded that the memory of a public employee is not a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S., and 1-19(a), G.S.
17. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the complainant's rights with respect to his request for "contacts."
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. With respect to the issue of promptness, as described in paragraph 7a. of the findings, above, henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-21i(a), G.S.
2. With respect to the request for "contacts", as described in paragraph 7b. of the findings, above, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 12, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 95-360 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:
ETHAN BOOK, JR.
P.O. Box 1385
Fairfield, CT 06430
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
c/o Raymond P. Pech, Esq.
Staff Attorney
90 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission