FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Eunice Giovanni, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-296 | |
|
Robert F. Nolan, Chief,
Police Department, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
September 12, 2001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 20, 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. It is found that on May 28, 2001, the complainant filed a complaint with the Hamden Police Department against a vendor she believed did not have a vendor’s permit.
3. It is also found that by
letter dated May 28, 2001, the complainant requested that the respondent
provide her with the following, (hereinafter “requested records”):
i) copy of Thavis [sic] Zindrus’ 2001 application for a vendor’s permit, excluding personal information such as social security number;
ii) the badge number of the [police] officer who acted on her complaint about the vendor;
iii) copy of the report filed by the [police] officer who acted on her complaint; and
iv) copy of Thavis [sic] Zindrus’ finger print form, excluding personal information.
4. It is found that by letter dated June 5, 2001, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the request and informed the complainant that the request had been forwarded to the office of the Town Attorney for review and that the complainant would be advised of the attorney’s decision concerning her request.
5. By letter dated June 7, 2001 and filed June 12, 2001, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying her a copy of the requested records. The complainant requested that the maximum civil penalty be imposed upon the respondent.
6. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Except 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 or 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. [Emphasis added.]
7. It is found that by letter
dated June 21, 2001 and postmarked June 26, 2001, the respondent provided the
complainant with Zindrus’ 2001 vendor application with respect to the
request as described in paragraph 3i), above, informed the complainant that no
records existed with respect to the request as described in paragraph 3ii) and
3iii), above, because no police “report” was required as Zindrus had all
required permits and licenses, and that the request for the finger print card,
as described in paragraph 3iv), above, was being denied as such card was
considered personal information.
8. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the finger print card, with the social security number and fingerprints redacted.
9. It is found that all of the records maintained or kept on file by the respondent that are responsive to the complainant’s request have now been provided to her. It is concluded that such records are “public records” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. The only outstanding issue at present is whether the respondent provided the records described in paragraph 9, above, to the complainant “promptly” in accordance with §1-210(a), G.S.
11. It is found that the respondent’s provision of access to the application, approximately four weeks after the request, and to the redacted finger print card, more that seven weeks after the request, was not prompt within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
12. Consequently, it is concluded
that the respondent violated the promptness provision of §1-210(a), G.S.
13. The Commission in its
discretion declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondent in this
matter. At the hearing in this
matter, counsel for the respondent indicated that research by counsel’s
office was necessary to determine whether the requested records were
disclosable or exempt. It is
found that the delay in disclosure of the records to the complainant is
attributed to the office of the respondent’s counsel, and not to any intent
on the part of the respondent to withhold the requested records from the
complainant.
14. However, it is clear that an
appropriate procedure needs to be implemented by the respondent and his
counsel whereby a request such as the one at issue here may be processed in a
timeframe far more expeditiously than four to seven weeks.
No order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
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:
Eunice Giovanni
280 Hillfield Road
Hamden, CT 06518
Robert F. Nolan, Chief,
Police Department, Town
of Hamden
c/o Susan Gruen, Esq.
Hamden Town Attorney
2372 Whitney Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-296/FD/paj/09/18/2001