FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In The Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Paul Marks and

The Hartford Courant,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 1997-161

Chairman, Police Commission,

Town of Windsor Locks; Police

Commission, Town of Windsor Locks;

and Windsor Locks Police

Department,

Respondents December 10, 1997

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 23, 1997, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G. S. (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(a), G.S.).

2. It is found that on May 14, 1997, the complainant Marks made at least two requests to the respondent chairman to inspect and copy an internal investigation report of the respondent department which was presented to the members of the respondent commission at its meeting on that date.

3. It is found that the respondent chairman denied the complainant Marks’ requests.

4. By letter dated May 14, 1997, and filed with this Commission on May 20, 1997, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by denying them access to review and to receive a copy of the subject report.

5. At the hearing in this matter, the complainants stated that they eventually received a copy of the requested record but they maintained that the respondents were in violation of the FOI Act for failing to promptly provide them with the copy.

6. The respondents contend that at the time of complainants’ original requests, the requested report was exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(1) , G.S., as a preliminary draft because the report submitted to the respondent commission on May 14, 1997, was the draft product of an ongoing investigation with several amendments and additions yet to be included in the report.

7. Section 1-19(b)(1), G.S., states that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of “preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

8. Section 1-19(c)(1), G.S., in relevant part provides that:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of . . . [§1-19(b)(1)], disclosure shall be required of interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory opinions, recommendations or any report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated, except disclosure shall not be required of a preliminary draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member of the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of such agency.

9. It is found that the requested report is a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S. (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(d), G.S.).

10. It is also found that the report was compiled and submitted to the chief of the respondent department by Detective Sergeant Rachele; and on or about May 14, 1997, the chief submitted the report for review by the respondent chairman, who then distributed copies of the report to three other members of the respondent commission for their review at the respondent commission’s May 14, 1997 meeting.

11. It is therefore concluded that even if the requested report were a preliminary draft at the time of the request, it was nonetheless not exempt from public disclosure pursuant to §1-19(c)(1), G.S., because it constituted an interagency or intra-agency report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and polices are formulated, and it was submitted not only to the chief of police, but to the respondent chairman and members of the respondent commission prior to the complainant’s request.

12. The respondents further contend that because the complainants failed to make a written request for the report, they were not entitled to receive a copy thereof pursuant to §1-15(a), G.S.

13. Section 1-15(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

14. It is found that although the respondents have a right, pursuant to §1-15(a), G.S., to insist upon a written request prior to complying with a request for copies of a public record, they failed to so insist; instead the respondent chairman denied the complainants’ requests to both inspect the subject report and provide them with a copy of it.

15. It is also found that the respondents actually provided the complainant with a copy of the requested report in early July 1997.

16. It is therefore concluded that the complainants’ requests were not invalid under §1-15(a), G.S., even though they were not in writing; and consequently it is also concluded that the respondents violated §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide a copy of the report to the complainants.

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 promptness provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.

2. The commission notes that the name of a victim of sexual assault appeared throughout the requested report; it encourages the respondents to consider appropriate redactions whenever such information is publicly disclosed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 10, 1997.

_________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Paul Marks

The Hartford Courant

101 Phoenix Avenue

Enfield, CT 06082

Chairman, Police Commission,

Town of Windsor Locks; Police

Commission, Town of Windsor Locks;

and Windsor Locks Police

Department

c/o Christopher R. Stone

111 Founders Plaza

East Hartford, CT 06118

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1997-161/FD/tcg/12101997