FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Steven Edelman,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 1999-205
Office of the Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Office of Public Safety,
		Respondents	October 27, 1999

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 8, 1999, 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 §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

2. By letter dated March 30, 1999, the complainant made a written request to the respondent department for access to inspect all personnel, employment, performance, health, and similar records, as well as any investigation records, pertaining to Leo Belval.

3. By letter dated April 1, 1999, the respondents responded to the complainant’s request stating that his request was under review and that he would be notified as soon as possible of the results of the review and any fees that may be due.

4. By letter dated and filed on April 30, 1999, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act by failing to provide the requested records within the statutory period of time and by failing to disclose the requested records. The complainant requested the imposition of the maximum civil penalty against the respondents.

5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

6. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].

7. At the hearing on this matter the complainant argued that the FOI Act requires a public agency to comply with a request to inspect personnel records within ten days of the request.

8. Also at the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that the requested records were personnel, medical or similar files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], and they were required to provide notice to Mr. Belvar of the request and an opportunity to object to the disclosure of the files pursuant to §1-214, G.S. [formerly §1-20a, G.S.].

9. It is found that Mr. Belvar is no longer employed by the respondent department and that the respondents were not able to expeditiously make contact with Mr. Belvar.

10. It is found that once Mr. Belvar was contacted, he informed the respondents that he had no objection to the disclosure of the records and that the respondents not only informed the complainant by letter dated May 12, 1999, that the records were available for his inspection, but also informed him by telephone prior to the May 12, 1999 letter.

11. Based upon the specific evidence in this case, it is found that the respondents promptly complied with the complainant’s request.

12. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the promptness requirements of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].

13. It is found that as of the date of the hearing in this matter, the complainant has not inspected the requested records.

14. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant argued that the respondents did not make clear that the records which were now available for his inspection included the investigation reports of Mr. Belvar and his involvement in the La Ambiance Plaza’s collapse, which he argued was included in his request letter of March 30, 1999 and that until he could be sure that the respondents would comply with that specific portion of his request, he would not inspect the records.

15. It is found that the respondents understood from the complainant’s request letter and a number of telephone conversations with the complainant, that he wanted to inspect the personnel file of Mr. Belvar and any investigation records involving Mr. Belvar that may be maintained in that personnel file.

16. It is found that the complainant’s specific request for access to inspect the investigation records pertaining to Mr. Belvar and the La Ambiance Plaza collapse was not set forth in his general request for access to inspect the personnel file of Mr. Belvar, or articulated by the complainant during the conversations described in paragraph 15, above. It is therefore found that to the extent that those specific records are not maintained in Mr. Belvar’s personnel file, they do not reasonably fall within the ambit of the complainant’s request letter.

17. It is further found that since the complainant has not taken the opportunity to inspect the records during the month between notice of their availability and the date of this hearing, his allegation that the respondents have failed to disclose all the requested records is unfounded and premature and will not be addressed by the Commission in this case.

18. The complainant’s request for the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondents is denied.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

October 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:

Steven Edelman

Frog Pond

Windham Center, CT 06280

Office of the Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety

c/o Robert B. Fiske, III

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105-2294

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1999-205/FD/mes/10291999