FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 22, 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.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed June 6, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by not complying with his request for records.

 

3.  It is found that the complainant filed a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [“EEOC”] complaint against the City of Bridgeport because he had not been hired as a firefighter, based on the results of his employment examination.

 

4.  It is found that by letter dated May 3, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with the following records in connection with the EEOC complaint:

 

a.       A copy of the certified letter requesting him to come to the respondent’s office to be interviewed by the respondent’s investigators about the EEOC complaint he filed about alleged conduct of Fire Inspectors Morales and Hernandez;

b.      A copy of the Labor Relations Office phone bill showing that the respondent’s investigators called him to come in to be interviewed about the complaint he filed;

c.       A copy of the letter from the complainant refusing to come in and be interviewed by the respondent;

d.      A copy of the interview of Fire Inspector Morales regarding the complainant’s EEOC claim;

e.       A copy of the interview of Fire Inspector Hernandez regarding the complainant’s EEOC claim;

f.        Copies of all letters sent to the Fire Department from the respondent regarding the complainant’s EEOC claim; and

g.       Copies of all letters sent from the Fire Department to the respondent regarding the complainant’s EEOC claim.

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated May 5, 2005,  the respondent acknowledged the complainant’s request.

 

            6.  It is found that by letter dated June 2, 2005, the respondent indicated that, after an extensive search, he was unable to find any of the requested information.

 

7.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

    “Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

8.  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 (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. 

 

9.  It is found that the respondent searched every file in his office for the records requested by the complainant, but found none.

 

10.  The complainant contends that the records must exist because, in the City of Bridgeport’s February 23, 2005 answer to the EEOC complaint, the City’s Personnel Director swore in a verified pleading that the City:

 

…attempted to investigate a complaint filed by John Bolton a candidate who took the firefighter examination but Mr. Bolton refused to cooperate with the investigation.  The City’s Labor Relations Department requested that Mr. Bolton come to Labor Relations office to be interviewed but Mr. Bolton refused to do so….

 

11.  The complainant acknowledges, however, that he never received a letter asking him to come in for an interview, as referenced in paragraph 4.a of the findings, above; never received a phone call asking him to come in for an interview, as referenced in paragraph 4.b of the findings, above; and never wrote a letter refusing to come in for an interview, as referenced in paragraph 4.c of the findings, above.

 

12.  It is also found that the Personnel Director believed at the time he swore to the truth of the statement described in paragraph 10 of the findings, above, that someone in the respondent’s office had requested an interview with Mr. Bolton.

 

13.  It is found, however, that no one in the office of the Personnel Director requested an interview with Mr. Bolton, that his complaint was not investigated, and that none of the records requested by the complainant ever existed.

 

14.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S.

 

 

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

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 12, 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:

 

John Bolton

71 Woodland Avenue

Bridgeport, CT 06605

  

Director, Office of Labor Relations,

City of Bridgeport 

c/o John Barton, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

999 Broad Street, 2^nd floor

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-268FD/paj/4/18/2006