FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Kenneth A. Hjulstrom, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-259 | |
|
Commissioner, State of |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September 12, 2001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 2, 2001, 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.
2. It is found that, by letter dated May 4, 2001 to the respondents, the complainant made a request for the initial claim, final settlement, testimony of witnesses and other case documents related to case #0040249, Gerry Black v. Town of Marlborough.
3. It is found that, by letter dated May 4, 2001, a secretary in the office of the respondents acknowledged receipt of the request described in paragraph 2, above, informed the complainant that the case file was being retrieved from a storage facility off-site, and that in order for the complainant to receive records other than the complaint and final disposition of the case, he “must either be a party to the case, have a signed release from a party to the case, or have an appearance on behalf of one of the parties filed with the CHRO.”
4. It is found that, by letter dated May 15, 2001, the respondents provided the complainant with copies of the requested claim and settlement documents, but denied the complainant copies of any other case related materials [hereinafter “the withheld records”].
5. It is found that, by letter dated May 17, 2001, the complainant acknowledged receipt of the records described in paragraph 4, above, reiterated his request for the withheld records, and forwarded a copy of a May 17, 2001 letter from Geraldine C. Black to the respondents regarding case # 0040249 [hereinafter “the release”], in which she informed the respondents that she did not object to the disclosure of all documents associated with the complaint and gave her consent to any such disclosure. It is further found that the release did not designate the complainant herein as the representative of Ms. Black.
6. It is found that, by letter dated May 23, 2001, to Ms. Black and copied to the complainant, the respondents informed her that they had received a request from the complainant for the contents of her file and that they were unclear as to whether the complainant was representing her. It is also found that, by such letter, the respondents forwarded to Ms. Black a copy of her complete file, and informed her that she was free to give the complainant any records, which she wished him to have.
7. By letter dated and filed on May 25, 2001, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to directly provide him with copies of the withheld records.
8. 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…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….
[Emphasis added.]
9. 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 . . . .”
10. The respondents maintain that the requested records are exempt from the mandatory disclosure provisions of the FOI Act by virtue of §46a-83(g), G.S.
11. Section 46a-83(g), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[n]o commissioner or employee of the [respondent] commission may disclose, except to the parties or their representatives, what has occurred in the course of such endeavors provided the commission may publish the facts in the case and any complaint which has been dismissed and the terms of conciliation when a complaint has been adjusted. Each party and his representative shall have the right to inspect and copy documents, statements of witnesses and other evidence pertaining to his complaint, except as otherwise provided by federal law or any other provision of the general statutes.
12. It is found that the withheld records fall within the purview of §46a-83(g), G.S., and that the complainant is not a “representative” of a party within the meaning of such provision.
13. It is therefore concluded that §46a-83(g), G.S., prohibits the respondents from disclosing the withheld records to the complainant.
14. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondents should have provided him with copies of the withheld records, since he complied with the terms of the letter described in paragraph 3, above. While it is found that such letter did not make clear that the complainant would have to be a “representative” of a party within the meaning of §46a-83(g), G.S., in order for the respondents to release the withheld records to him, it is nevertheless concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by denying the complainant copies of such records.
15. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents acknowledged that the letter described in paragraph 3, above, was misleading and apologized to the complainant for any inconvenience caused thereby.
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 September 12, 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:
Kenneth A. Hjulstrom
181 South Main Street
Marlborough, CT 06447
Commissioner, State of
Connecticut, Commission
on Human Rights and
Opportunities; and State of
Connecticut, Commission
on Human Rights and
Opportunities
c/o Philip A. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities
21 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-259/FD/paj/09/18/2001