FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 21, 2005, 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.      It is found that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that, in November of 2004, the complainant applied to the Waterford Police Department for employment as a police officer and was offered conditional employment at that time.   It is found that, thereafter, the respondent informed the complainant, in a letter dated April 27, 2005, that he did not meet the standards of the department to become a police officer and that his application would not be processed further. 

 

3.      It is found that by letter dated May 17, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the results of the background check used by the respondent in reviewing his application to become a police officer.

 

4.      By an undated letter filed on June 17, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him a copy of the background check records.

 

5.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant claimed that while he had received two packets of records in response to his May 17, 2005 request, the records were not the records he requested.

 

6.      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 (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.  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. 

 

7.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.” 

 

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

 

9.      It is found that, before the complainant made his May 17, 2005 records request, he had requested, on several occasions, to meet with the respondent to discuss his application and his failure to meet the department’s standards for becoming a police officer. Such meeting was held on June 20, 2005.  It is found that while the respondent met with the complainant, he did not provide the requested records.

 

10.   It is found that the respondent believed that since he had met with the complainant, the issue with respect to the complainant’s records request was settled. 

 

11.   It is found that, after the respondent was provided with notice of the complaint in this matter, he realized that he had erred in believing that the complainant no longer desired the requested records. It is found that the respondent then sent two packets of records to the complainant, which represented all records maintained by the town of Waterford pertaining to the complainant.

 

12.   It is found that the records described in paragraph 11, above, were two separate personnel files, one maintained by the police department and the other by the human resources department of the town of Waterford.  It is found that the records consisted of many duplicates, none of which could be distinguished as records specifically responsive to the complainant’s May 17, 2005 request. 

 

13.   It is found that the respondent failed to establish which records described in paragraph 11, above, constituted the records responsive to the complainant’s specific records request.

 

14.   It is found that even at the hearing on this matter, the respondent could only distinguish two records out of all of the records provided to the complainant that constituted records of the background check. 

 

15.   It is found that given the specificity of the complainant’s May 17, 2005 request, the respondent’s provision of all of the complainant’s personnel records, although provided in the spirit of full disclosure, was not appropriately responsive to the complainant’s request. 

 

16.   It is concluded therefore that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of the §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by not providing the records that were specifically responsive to the complainant’s May 17, 2005 request.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

1.      If the respondent has not already done so, within two weeks of issuance of the notice of the final decision in this matter, he shall provide the complainant with a copy of the records, and only those records, which constitute the records of the background check of the complainant during his application for the position of police officer, free of charge.

 

2.      Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Fabian Danilo Silva

67 Hawthorne Dr., Apt. 2

New London, CT 06320

 

Chief, Police Department, Town of

Waterford  

c/o Nicholas F. Kepple, Esq.

Box 3A Anguilla Park

20 South Anguilla Road

Pawcatuck, CT 06379

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-287FD/paj/1/18/2006