FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Jeffrey
H. Mockler and AFSCME |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-193 |
|
|
State
of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 11, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on May 16, 2001, at which time the complainants 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated March 12, 2001 to the respondent, the complainants requested “any and all documents including but not limited to witness statements, incident reports and video tapes stemming from any and all incidents which occurred on October 20, 2000, at the New Haven Juvenile Detention Center which involved Juvenile Detention Officer (JDO) Matthew Kowalski.”
3. By letter dated March 14, 2001, the respondent denied the complainants’ request claiming that the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(4), G.S.
4. By letter dated April 6, 2001 and filed on April 9, 2001, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their request.
5. Section 1-210(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 1-212. 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. Section 1-212(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 . . . .”
7. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent argued that the requested records are records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to a pending grievance and therefore are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(4), G.S.
9. Section 1-210(b)(4), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of:
records pertaining to strategy and negotiation with respect to pending claims or pending litigations to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.
10. It is found that Matthew Kowalski, the subject of the requested records, was disciplined for alleged use of excessive force in subduing a detainee at the New Haven Juvenile Detention Center.
11. It is found that Mr. Kowalski filed a grievance with respect to such discipline against the respondent’s client, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Court Support Services Division, which grievance, at the time of the hearing on this matter, was still pending.
12. It is found that the requested records, which consist of witness statements, a report of the pre-disciplinary hearing, and a video tape recording of the incident in question, are being used to develop the respondent’s strategy with respect to settlement of the grievance.
13. It is found therefore that the requested records pertain to “strategy” with respect to a pending claim to which the respondent’s client is a party within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S., and are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to such statute. See City of Stamford et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al., 241 Conn. 310, (1997).
14. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) or 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainants’ request.
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 July 11, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Jeffrey H. Mockler and AFSCME
Connecticut Council 4, AFL-CIO
444 East Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051
State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch,
Division of Legal Services
c/o Martin R. Libbin, Esq.
Judicial Branch, Court Operations
Division, Legal Services
PO Box 150474, 100 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06115-0474
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-193/FD/paj/07/16/2001