FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 21, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with docket #FIC 2006-150; Nancy Rossi v. Office of the Mayor, City of West Haven.

 

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 by letter dated March 6, 2006, the complainant made a request to the respondent to inspect “all handwritten records, notes, etc., kept exclusively in the Registrar’s Office pertaining to payroll/seminar/reimbursements for the employee Deborah Evangelista.”  

 

3.      By letter dated March 9, 2006, the respondent informed the complainant that there are no “handwritten records, notes, etc., kept exclusively in the Registrar’s Office pertaining to payroll/seminar/reimbursements for the employee Deborah Evangelista.”  

 

4.      By letter dated March 31, 2006 and filed on April 4, 2006, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with the request described in paragraph 2, above.

 

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

 

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 . . .  receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

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

 

7.      It is found that the complainant became aware that Deborah Evangelista, the administrative assistant in the respondent’s office, had been paid for hours that exceeded the hours reflected on her time sheet produced by the time-clock system used by the city.

 

8.      It is found that the complainant requested that the City Council of West Haven (hereinafter “City Council”) conduct a formal investigation of the matter. 

 

9.        It is found that at a certain meeting of the City Council, Ms. Evangelista, offered to produce her own records, which she stored at her home, to verify that the hours for which she was paid were for hours she actually worked.

 

10.    It is found that Ms. Evangelista showed council members a desk calendar that she used to record any extra hours that she worked outside of the office, or that were not recorded by the time-clock, to verify that the wages she received were consistent with the hours she worked.

 

11.    It is found that, after Ms. Evangelista’s desk calendar was inspected, the City Council determined that it would not conduct a formal investigation of Ms. Evangelista’s wages and Ms. Evangelista took the desk calendar home.

 

12.    It is found that the desk calendar described in paragraph 10, above, is the record the complainant was seeking when she made her March 6, 2006 request.

 

13.    At the hearing on this matter, the respondent contended that the desk calendar is Ms. Evangelista’s personal property and not a public record of the respondent and therefore, the respondent is not required to maintain, nor is the complainant entitled to receive, a copy of it. 

 

14.    Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“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.

 

15.    Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “. . . [a public] agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business . . . .”

 

16.    It is found that the City Council used Ms. Evangelista’s desk calendar to determine whether or not it would conduct a formal investigation of the hours she worked and the wages she was paid.

 

17.    It is found that, even though Ms. Evangelista recorded the information herself, the respondent used the information from the desk calendar to pay her for the extra hours that she worked outside of the office or that were not recorded by the time-clock. 

 

18.   It is found therefore that the desk calendar constitutes “any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business . . . used . . . by a public agency” within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S.

 

19.   It is found that the desk calendar, to the extent it still exists, is a public record within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

20.   It is found that neither the respondent or the City Council kept on file a copy of the desk calendar after it was reviewed but, as already found in paragraph 11, above, allowed Ms. Evangelista to take it home.

 

21.    Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to keep and maintain the desk calendar, or a copy thereof, at his office.

 

22.    Furthermore, at the hearing on this matter, counsel for the respondent represented that Ms. Evangelista destroyed the desk calendar after it was determined that there would not be an investigation which determination occurred prior to the complainant’s March 6, 2006 request.

 

23.    It is found that the legality of the destruction of the desk calendar is a matter over which the state’s Public Records Administrator may have jurisdiction and is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission.

 

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

 

1.      Forthwith the respondent shall obtain and provide the complainant with a copy of an affidavit from Ms. Evangelista attesting to the fact that the desk calendar described in paragraph 10, of the findings above, was destroyed and the date, or approximate date, of such destruction.

2.      The complainant may pursue any allegations of violations of records retention requirements with the state’s Public Records Administrator who may have jurisdiction over such matters.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 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:

 

Nancy Rossi

Twelve Robin Road

West Haven, CT 06516

 

Democratic Registrar of Voters,

City of West Haven

c/o Henry C. Szadkowski, Esq.

West Haven Corporation Counsel

355 Main Street

West Haven, CT 06516

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-152FD/paj/10/30/2006