The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 5, 1998, 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of § 1-18a(1), G.S.

        2. By letter dated August 6, 1998, the complainant requested copies of "all records contained in the personnel file of Matthew Beck including:

a.  evaluations;

b.  promotions (or lack of the same);

c.  pay raises received or denied and the reasons;

d.  copies of correspondence between Matthew Beck and the Connecticut Lottery Commission (hereinafter "CLC");

e.  copies of correspondence between Matthew Beck and any other departments of the State of Connecticut;

f.  and reasons given for denying Matthew Beck’s requests for transfer.

        3. By letter dated August 18, 1998, and filed on August 20, 1998, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents failed to respond to his request.

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

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.

        5. Section 1-15(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

        6. It is found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of § § 1-18a(5).

        7. It is found that by letter dated April 3, 1998, the complainant, through his attorney, made a request for the records described in paragraph 2, above, to the Acting Executive of the Division of Special Revenue which letter was forwarded to the corporate counsel for the respondent corporation who responded in a letter dated April 28, 1998, indicating that records and responses to the complainant’s request were being prepared and would be provided.

        8. It is found that as of May 19, 1998, the complainant had not received any records or further responses from the respondents regarding his request and submitted letters to the corporate counsel and the respondents to that effect.

        9. It is also found that by letter dated May 19, 1998, the complainant personally submitted a request to the respondents for the complete personnel and medical files of Matthew Beck.

        10. It is found that by letter dated June 2, 1998, the respondents submitted to the complainant’s attorney what it represented to be the complete personnel and medical file of Matthew Beck.

        11. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant argued that the respondents did not provided the complete personnel file because the documents specifically requested in the April 3, 1998, letter were not included which prompted the complainant to submit his August 6, 1998, letter, described in paragraph 2, above, to the respondents.

        12. At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that it submitted all the records contained in the file it maintained and that the specific records requested by the complainant are grievance records and that such records, to the extent that they exist, are maintained by the Office of Labor Relations.

        13. It is found that the respondents do not maintain the records more fully described in paragraph 2, above, and that the respondents submitted to the complainant’s attorney all the records it maintained in the personnel and medical files of Matthew Beck.

        14. Notwithstanding the findings in paragraph 13, above, it is found that the respondents failed to promptly respond to the request of April 3, 1998, and it is concluded that the respondents violated § § 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by such failure.

        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 provision of § 1-15, G.S.

        Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 27, 1999.

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

Donald Beck

312 Shewville Road

Ledyard, CT 06339

Director, State of Connecticut,

Connecticut Lottery Corporation,

Human Resources; and State of

Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery

Corporation, Human Resources

c/o Atty. Richard L. Street

Carmody & Torrance

50 Leavenworth Street

PO Box 1110

Waterbury, CT 06721

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-233FD/mrb01291999