FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 21, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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)(A), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated May 19, 2006, the complainant readdressed an earlier request to the respondent for “ a copy of the written decision made by Commissioner Andrew P. Denuzze, 6^th District of New Britain, from May 18^th 1988 and July 27^th 1988 Formal hearing, Re; Sec. 31-313, and all of the copies regarding these two hearings” [boldface in the original] (the “requested records”).

 

3.  By letter dated and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“FOIC” or sometimes the “Commission”) on May 22, 2006, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent failed to provide the requested records.

 

4.  By letter dated May 23, 2006 to the complainant, an agent for the respondent acknowledged the May 19, 2006 request, and enclosed copies of: a) Commisssioner Denuzze’s notes from the informal hearing held on May 18, 1988 at 10:15 a.m.; and b) Commisssioner Denuzze’s notes from the formal hearing held on July 27, 1988 at 10:00 a.m. The respondent’s agent added that the same records had been provided previously to the complainant on March 3, 2006 and April 3, 2006. Finally, respondent’s agent stated that “these two pages represent the entire and complete recording of these hearings” and that “[w]e simply do not have any additional documentation in our files, in any location, to provide to you.”

 

5.  Sections 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., state, respectively, in relevant parts:

 

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. 

 

…

 

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

(emphasis added)  

           

6.  It is concluded that the requested records described in paragraph 2, above, are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.  

 

7.  At the hearing, the complainant, who does not speak English, stated through his able interpreter that he believed either more records existed or more records should exist concerning the two hearings that were referenced in his request, as set forth at paragraph 2, above. On August 25, 2006, the complainant filed a letter with the Commission reiterating; “I would like to ask for the legal explanation why was I denied the right RE: Sec. 31-313 W.C. ACT”. But, of course, the Commission has no authority under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to order any public agency to create records (except procedural records required by the FOIA, such as minutes). The FOIA addresses records already maintained or kept on file by a public agency, and confers no powers on the FOIC to regulate broadly the workings and record creation of public agencies, such as the respondent.

 

8.  It is found that Ms. Connie Rue, the FOIA Liaison for the respondent, and Elizabeth Walter, the Administrator for the Sixth District Office in New Britain, spent, respectively, one, and at least two, hours searching for the requested records. Ms. Rue searched the central office file in the Commissioner’s office, where she serves as executive assistant. Ms. Walter searched the complainant’s claim file where it is maintained in the New Britain District Office that she supervises. Additionally, Ms. Walter checked with the stenographic reporter, Tammy Carlson, concerning the possible existence of index cards that were generally used to make relevant notations for formal hearings in the period prior to 1995. Finally, concerning the nature and quality of relevant searches for records, Ms. Rue and Ms. Walter testified that since 1992, they have together “spent a day or two”, “eight hours, maybe more” on searches for various records the complainant requested.

 

9.  Based upon the diligent search detailed at paragraph 8, above, it is found that there were no written decisions resulting from either the May 18, 1988 informal hearing or the July 27, 1988 formal hearing. Moreover, no index card was on file for the formal hearing held on July 27, 1988. Nor was any record of testimony maintained for either hearing. It is further found that, given the practices of the respondent in 1988, it was not unusual for there to be neither written decisions nor recorded testimony for the two relevant hearings. Indeed, it is found that the notes set forth at paragraph 4, above, are the only records that the respondent maintained or kept on file concerning the hearings on May 18, 1988 and July 27, 1988.   

 

10.  It is found that Commisssioner Denuzze’s notes from the formal hearing held on July 27, 1988, referenced at paragraph 4b above, suggest that the matter would be rescheduled for further consideration at the end of September 1988. While records relating to the September 1988 proceedings are outside the scope of the complainant’s request set forth at paragraph 2, above, it is found that, as a courtesy to the complainant, the respondent furnished him at the hearing with additional records relating to the September 1988 proceedings. It is also found that the respondent has furnished to the complainant numerous other records that he has requested.      

 

            11.  It is concluded that the respondent furnished the complainant, on three separate occasions, all of the requested records that the respondent maintained or kept on file.     

 

The following orders by the Commission are 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 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:

 

Jan Krajewski

78 Osgood Avenue

New Britain, CT 06053

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Workers’ Compensation Commission

c/o Laurie Adler, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2006-263FD/paj/10/31/2006