FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

Alan R. Jones,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1995-413

 

Director of Safety & Security, State of

Connecticut, Department of Veteran's

Affairs and Security Supervisor, State of

Connecticut, Department of Veteran's Affairs,

 

            Respondents                                                                 September 25, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 15, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         It is found that by letters dated December 13, 1995, the complainant requested that each respondent provide him with access to inspect the following records:

 

a.  any documents or correspondence relating to the provisional and permanent appointment/position of Building and Grounds Supervisor Patrol Officer executed or received by you, or in your custody, or in someone else's custody that you have knowledge of; and

 

b.  any and all notes indirectly or directly relating to the provisional and permanent appointment/position of Building and Grounds Supervisor Patrol Officer in

 

Docket #FIC 1995-413                                                                                   Page 2

 

your Daily Business Planner/Business Diary also known as your "Franklin".

 

            3.         It is found that the respondents by letters dated December 18, 1995 informed the complainant that his requests were being reviewed and that they would get back to him.

 

            4.         Having failed to receive access to the requested records the complainant, by letter dated December 20, 1995 and filed on December 22, 1995, appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents denied him access to the requested records described in paragraph 2., above.

 

            5.         It is found that the respondent director maintains records that are responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

            6.         It is found that on February 14, 1996 the respondent director provided the complainant with copies of four pages of the respondent director's 1995 daily business planner (hereinafter "planner"), and records pertaining to the position and appointment of the respondent security supervisor to such position.  It is also found that on February 23, 1996, the respondent director provided the complainant with access to inspect the respondent’s 1996 planner.

 

            7.         It is found that the respondent director does not presently maintain planners for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, with the exception of the information provided to the complainant  and described in paragraph 6, above.

 

            8.         It is found that the respondent director maintained a planner for the year 1995 which planner was subsequently destroyed.

 

            9.         It is found that the 1995 planner, described in paragraph 8, above, may have contained information, responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

            10.       It is found that the 1995 planner, described in paragraph 8, above, and the records provided by the respondent director to the complainant on February 14 and 23, 1996, described in paragraph 6, above are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            11.       It is found that the access provided by the respondent director to the complainant on February 14, 1996, described in paragraph 6, above, approximately two months after the complainant’s request, was not prompt within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S.

 

 

Docket #FIC 1995-413                                                                                   Page 3

 

 

            12.       It is therefore concluded that the respondent director violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with access to a copy of the records he maintained which were responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

            13.       With respect to the complainant’s record request directed to the respondent security supervisor, it is found that the respondent security supervisor informed the complainant by memoranda dated February 15 and 23, 1996 that he does not maintain any records responsive to his request, with the exception of certain personnel records which the complainant already had.

 

            14.       The complainant contends that the respondent security supervisor did not provide him with notes contained in the respondent security supervisor's planner.

 

            15.       It is found that the respondent security supervisor's testimony that he never kept or maintained a planner is not credible.

 

            16.       It is found that the respondent security supervisor kept a planner which may have contained notes responsive to the complainant's request.  However, it is unclear whether such planner still exists as of the date of the hearing into this matter.

 

            17.       It is found that the planner described in paragraph 16, above, is a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.         Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            2.         The respondents are advised that the wilful destruction of any public record, without the necessary approval, could lead to the imposition of criminal sanctions pursuant to §1-21k(a), G.S.

 

            3.         The respondents are advised to contact the state’s Public Records Administrator for guidance with respect to the retention and destruction of public records.

 

Docket #FIC 1995-413                                                                                   Page 4

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 1996.

 

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

Docket #FIC 1995-413                                                                                   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:

 

Alan R. Jones

47 Crest Drive

Vernon, CT 06066

 

 

Director of Safety & Security, State of Connecticut, Department of Veteran's Affairs and Security Supervisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Veteran's Affairs

c/o  Judith A. Merrill, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

P.O. Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission