FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Levoy E. Baker, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2001-535 | ||
|
Police Department, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, |
|||
| Respondent | July 10, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 6, 2002, 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 November 17, 2001 the complainant made a request to the respondents for copies of all documents used in the decision-making process of the promotion of Officer McGann at the University of Connecticut Police Department in Storrs. The complainant specified that such records should include “oral board results and notes taken during the first and second interviews and the summary report referred to in section 18.12d of the administrative orders, and supervisors’ report and training records” (hereinafter “November request”).
3. By letter dated December 3, 2001 and filed on December 6, 2001 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to his November request for records and to comply with the order in this Commission’s final decision in Docket #FIC1999-346 Levoy E. Baker v. Police Department, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut (hereinafter “Docket #FIC 1999-346).
4. 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.
5. 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 . . . .”
6. It is found that, to the extent the requested records exist, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. It is found that on or about December 21, 2001, the respondents provided the complainant with copies of records responsive to his November request.
8. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that the respondents’ response was not prompt within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., and further, that the response was incomplete because the respondents failed to provide copies of any oral board results or notes and the summary report.
9. With respect to the complainant’s claim that the response he received from the respondents was incomplete, it is found that the records provided to the complainant included a copy of: the promotion announcement; letters of interest from Officers Peter W. Meshanic, Michael J. Kurpiewski, K. Roberto, David McGann, Kevin Snow, and Levoy E. Baker; the schedule of oral board interviews; letters advising each interested officer of the time of their oral board interview; a letter announcing the findings of the oral board; and a letter announcing the promotion of David McGann.
10. It is found that the letter announcing the findings of the oral board interviewers constituted the oral board results and the summary report.
11. It is found that: the respondents do not maintain any oral board notes; neither supervisor reports nor training records were used during the promotion process of David McGann; and there are no other records responsive to the complainant’s request.
12. It is concluded therefore that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S., with respect to the complainant’s November request.
13. With respect to the complainant’s claim that the respondents failed to respond promptly to his request, it is found that the respondent department was under extreme stress having made more than 200 criminal arrests, investigated 3 student deaths, and addressed the anthrax scares and hate crimes that resulted after the events of September 11, 2001.
14. It is found that such activity was very unusual for the respondent department and caused the delay in providing the complainant with the records he requested.
15. It is concluded that under the circumstances the respondents promptly complied with the complainant request pursuant to §1-210(a), G.S.
16. Notwithstanding the conclusion in paragraph 15, above, it is found that the respondents’ failure to, at the minimum, acknowledge that they received the complainant’s request and to offer a time period during which compliance could be expected is unacceptable.
17. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent failed to comply with this Commission’s final decision in Docket #FIC1999-346, the Commission takes administrative notice of the record and its decision in that case wherein the respondents were ordered to provide the complainant with copies of the records used during the promotional process between January 1, 1991 and October 7, 1998, free of charge.
18. It is found that following the decision in Docket FIC1999-346, the respondents searched through seven years of records and provided the complainant with a total of one hundred and sixty-two records on or about March 28, 2000.
19. It is found however that the complainant refused to accept the records claiming that the records provided were incomplete because they did not include training records.
20. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents claimed that training records were not used during the promotional process between January 1, 1991 and October 7, 1998, which claim is consistent with the claim made by the respondents in Docket #FIC 1999-346.
21. It is found that the complainant offered no evidence to refute the respondents’ claim described in paragraph 20, above.
22. Consequently, since training records were not used during the promotional process between January 1, 1991 and October 7, 1998, it is concluded that the respondents complied with this Commission’s final decision in Docket #FIC 1999-346, on or about March 28, 2000 as described in paragraph 18, above.
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 10, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Levoy E. Baker
119 Oakwood Avenue
West Hartford, CT 06119
Police Department, State of Connecticut,
University of Connecticut; and State of
Connecticut, University of Connecticut
c/o Paul M. Shapiro, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
University of Connecticut
Box U-177, 605 Gilbert Road
Storrs, CT 06269-1177
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-535/FD/paj/7/11/2002