1999-266FD.htm

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Steven Edelman,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 1999-266
Lieutenant Mark Coleman, Commanding Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, Troop K; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, Troop K
		Respondents	October 27, 1999

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 4, 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 June 8, 1999, and filed on June 22, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the Commission’s final decision and order in contested case docket #FIC 1998-216, Steven Edelman v. Lieutenant Mark Coleman, Commanding Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, Troop K; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, Troop K, (hereinafter “FIC 1998-216”) wherein, the Commission ordered the respondents to:

permit the complainant access to the requested recordings, specifically, to the recordings of the complainant’s telephone calls to Troop K and conversations between the complainant and Troop K on June 25, 1998.

The complainant requested in his complaint that the Commission seek criminal sanctions against all named respondents pursuant to §1-240(b), G.S., (formerly §1-21k(b), G.S.).

3. The Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in FIC 1998-216.

4. It is found that the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of a miniature tape by mail, which tape the complainant received on July 31, 1999.

5. The complainant contends that the respondents failed to timely comply with the Commission’s April 22, 1999 order in FIC 1998-216 which directed that provision of access to the complainant should be “forthwith”.

6. The Commission agrees that the respondents’ July 31, 1999 provision of access to the tape recordings, some three and a half months after the Commission’s final decision and order in FIC 1998-216, was not in compliance with the “forthwith” order.

7. The respondents explained at the hearing on this matter that their delay in complying with the Commission’s order was due to a mistake on their part in locating the tape from which a copy was to be made and provided to the complainant, however, as soon as the tape was located they immediately forwarded a copy to the complainant.

8. The Commission does not find any attempt on the part of the respondents to deliberately not comply with the Commission’s order in FIC 1998-216. However, the Commission finds that at a minimum, the respondents should have contacted the complainant and indicated that they were experiencing difficulty in locating the tape from which to make a copy.

9. With respect to the complainant’s contention that he is unable to listen to the tape recording he received on July 31, 1999, described in paragraph 4, above, because such tape recording is a miniature size, which cannot be played on a standard cassette tape player, the respondent lieutenant agreed at the hearing in this matter to provide the complainant with a standard size tape recording.

10. Finally, with respect to the complainant’s contention that he is entitled to three hours of taped conversations, it is found that in FIC 1998-216, finding 10, indicates, in relevant part:

… the respondents failed to prove that disclosure of the requested recordings, specifically, the recordings of the complainant’s telephone calls to Troop K on June 25, 1998, would be prejudicial to the pending malicious mischief action, within the meaning of §1-19(b)(3)(C), G.S. [Emphasis added.]

11. It is found that the tape recordings ordered disclosed in FIC 1998-216 were only those recordings of the complainant’s telephone calls to Troop K and those conversations between the complainant and Troop K on June 25, 1998.

12. The Commission does not find that referral for criminal prosecution is warranted in this case.

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

1. Forthwith, the respondent lieutenant shall ensure that the complainant is provided with a tape which can be played on a standard size tape player. Such tape should contain a copy of the complainant’s telephone calls to Troop K and those conversations between the complainant and Troop K on June 25, 1998.

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

Lieutenant Mark Coleman, Commanding

Officer, State of Connecticut, Department

of Public Safety, Division of State Police,

Troop K; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety, Division of

State Police, Troop K

c/o Robert B. Fiske, III

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105-2294

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1999-266/FD/mes/10291999