FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 13, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The case caption has been corrected to reflect the appropriate designation of the respondents.

 

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 the complainant is an officer in the Naugatuck Police Department.

 

3.  It is found that, by letter dated September 15, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with access to any and all records pertaining to:

 

“Ford Crown Victoria patrol cars that were sent to Ford dealerships that were serviced, and service was completed per the technical service bulletin modifications that were made on October 2001 by Ford; see attached (Ford Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) 01/21/14).  Including but not limited to, records pertaining to, receipts, purchase orders, or any other record showing said repairs were completed.  Any and all policies & procedures pertaining to the Ford modifications as it relates the possibility of a fuel tank puncture in rear impact collisions to having vehicles stopped on or near high speed roadways and avoid using trunk space to carry objects such as jacks, unless they are wrapped in strong, non-puncture producing cases.”

 

4.  It is found that, by September 19, 2002, the respondents had assembled all records which they keep on file and maintain that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 3, above, for the complainant’s review.  

 

5.  It is further found that Captain Fortin, of the respondent department, telephoned the complainant at his home on September 19, 2002, to notify him that the records described in paragraph 4, above, were ready for his review, and that he left a message to that effect on the complainant’s answering machine.  It is further found that the complainant was unable to retrieve, and therefore did not receive, such message.

 

            6.  By letter dated September 30, 2002, and filed with the Commission on October 2, 2002, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him access to the records described in paragraph 3, above.  At the hearing in this matter, both the complainant and respondents requested the imposition of civil penalties against each other.

 

            7.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….

 

8.  It is found that, to the extent that they exist, the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

9.  It is found that, by departmental message dated October 9, 2002, the respondents again informed the complainant that the records he requested were available for his review. 

 

10.  It is found that the respondents moved to dismiss this matter on October 8, 2002, and attached the records described in paragraph 4, above, to such motion, which was copied to the complainant.  It is further found that the complainant acknowledged receipt of such records by letter of October 10, 2002, to Captain Fortin. 

 

11.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain or keep on file any policies or procedures pertaining to the Ford modifications, as contemplated in the complainant’s request described in paragraph 3, above.

 

12.  It is found that the respondents did not specifically inform the complainant that they do not maintain or keep on file the records described in paragraph 11, above.  It is further found that the complainant has in his possession a complete copy of the respondents’ policies and procedures.

 

12.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a), G.S.

 

13.   Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission declines to impose a civil penalty against the complainant.

 

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.

 

2.  The parties are advised that the Commission seeks to resolve undisputed matters without the need for costly and time-consuming administrative hearings, and that this complaint might well have been resolved through the Commission’s ombudsman program.  

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

May 28, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Rick Smolicz

33 Wilkenda Avenue

Waterbury, CT  06708

 

Chief, Police Department,

Borough of Naugatuck; and Police

Commission, Borough of Naugatuck

c/o William J. Ward, Esq.

Ouellette, Deganis, Gallagher & Ward

143 Main Street

Cheshire, CT  06410

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-472FD/abg/05/30/2003