FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Steve Fontaine, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-150 |
|
|
Gloria
Sparveri, Personnel Director, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
August 8, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on June 1, 2001, 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 respondent is a
public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated
February 20, 2001 to the respondent, the complainant requested copies of:
a.
“any and all
documents, records and notes written by Sgt. Vernali or Sgt. Kulas since March
20, 1997 pertaining to any union member’s conduct, discipline or performance”
and
b.
“the disciplinary
records of all union members who have been charged or disciplined for
violating Rule of Conduct 1.05 Reporting for Duty, 1.36 Departmental Records,
or 1.42 Truthfulness since March 20, 1997 and all documents, records and notes
pertaining to the incident.”
3.
By letter dated
February 21, 2001, to the complainant, the respondent provided the following
response:
“This
request for information mirrors, exactly, your original request for
information on the case which was scheduled for arbitration BUT was settled.
So,
I shall again, repeat what I offered to you before,
The Town is under no obligation to furnish you with documents and
materials that relate to your grievance which you withdrew as a part of the
settlement with the Town.[sic]
And,
again, I shall advise you that this case is closed.”
4.
By letter dated March
14, 2001 and filed on March 15, 2001, the complainant appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by denying his records request and requesting that this Commission impose
a civil penalty against the respondent.
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.
It is found that the
complainant previously requested the subject records by letter dated January
16, 2001 to the respondent, where in he indicated that he wanted the records
“in order to prepare and process [his] grievance,” which grievance he
subsequently withdrew prior to receiving the records.
9.
It is found that the
respondent had begun to compile the requested records pursuant to the
complainant’s January 16, 2001 request, but did not provide him with them
because she believed he no longer required the records since he withdrew his
grievance.
10.
It is found that when
the complainant made his February 20, 2001 request, the respondent assumed
that such request was related to the grievance he withdrew and his prior
records request of January 16, 2001.
11.
At
the hearing on this matter, the respondent explained that her February 21,
2001 response to the complainant contained typographical errors and that she
did not deny the complainant’s request but rather offered to provide the
complainant what she had compiled pursuant to his January 16, 2001 request.
12.
With respect to the
complainant’s request described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the
respondent inquired of the Chief of the Rocky Hill Police Department as to
whether there were any records maintained by Sgt. Vernali or Sgt. Kulas
responsive to such request and was informed that there were none.
13.
It is found that the
respondent does not know whether the Chief inquired of Sgt. Vernali or Sgt.
Kulas directly, as to whether they maintained any records responsive to the
complainant’s request described in paragraph 2a, above.
14.
It is found that the
respondent failed to conduct a diligent search for records responsive to the
complainant’s records request described in paragraph 2a, above, and that it
is unclear from the records whether any records exist responsive to such
request.
15.
With respect to the
complainant’s records request described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found
that sometime prior to the hearing on this matter, the respondent provided the
complainant with all responsive records.
16.
It is further found,
however, that the respondent did not provide such records until after she
received notice of the complainant’s appeal to this Commission, which was on
or about April 3, 2001.
17.
It is therefore found
that the respondent failed to promptly comply with the complainant’s request
described in paragraph 2, above, and consequently, it is concluded that the
respondent violated the provisions of §1-212(a), G.S.
18.
The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondent.
The following order
by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning
the above-captioned complaint.
1.
The
respondent shall conduct a diligent search for the requested records described
in paragraph 2a, of the findings, above, by, at the minimum, inquiring of Sgt.
Vernali and Sgt. Kulas directly as to whether they maintain any records
responsive to such request. Thereafter
the respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of any
records located as a result of such search.
If the respondent is unable to locate any records responsive to the
complainant’s request described in paragraph 2a,of the findings, above, she
shall prepare a sworn affidavit describing in detail what steps she took to
locate records, and shall submit copies of said affidavit to the complainant
and to this Commission.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 8, 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:
Steve Fontaine
Rocky Hill Police Department
699 Old Main Street
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
Gloria
Sparveri, Personnel Director,
Town
of Rocky Hill,
c/o
Donald W. Strickland, Esq.
Siegel,
O'Connor, Schiff & Zangari
150
Trumbull Street
Hartford,
CT 06103
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-150/FD/paj/08/13/2001