FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Allan M. Baver,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 87-136

Director, Collection and ,Enforcement Division of the State of Connecticut Department of Revenue Services,

Respondent August 12, 1987

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 17, 1987, 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:

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint dated May 6, 1987 and filed with the Commission on May 7, 1987, the complainant alleged the respondent failed to comply with paragraph 2 of the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 86-345.

3. The paragraph in question states: "In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondent may mask or otherwise delete any information contained in the investigation report that is exempt from disclosure under the explicit language of §§12-15(a) or 1-19(b)(10), G.S., as construed by the decision."

4. The respondent claims the information masked from the investigation report is exempt from disclosure under §12-15(a) G.S., and therefore he has complied with paragraph 2 of the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 86-345.

5. It is found the following statements were masked from the four pages of the investigation report:

Docket #FIC 87-136 Page 2

a. On page 2, in the first full paragraph, the sentence beginning with "However, they agreed," contains a statement as to whether or not a tax was collected.

b. On page 2, in the second full paragraph, the sentence beginning with "Former Chief MacLintic stated," contains a statement of the procedure followed by Association representatives in determining whether or not a sales tax permit was required.

c. On page 2, in the second full paragraph, the sentence beginning "Chief MacLintic," contains a statement of allegations of impropriety concerning the 1984 Windsor Beerfest.

d. On page 2, in the second full paragraph, the sentence beginning "He stated," contains a statement as to whether or not a tax was collected.

e. On page 2, in the second full paragraph, the sentence beginning "Fire Chief Tom Pignone," contains a statement concerning the profitability of the 1984 Windsor Beerfest.

f. On page 3, in the first paragraph, the sentence beginning "Former Chief MacLintic," contains a statement concerning the division of profits.

g. On page 3, in the first paragraph, the sentence beginning "Chief MacLintic stated," contains a statement concerning the identity of the beer supplier.

h. On page 3, in the second paragraph, the sentence beginning "I proceeded to," contains the name of the supplier.

i. On page 3, in the second paragraph, the sentence beginning "At this time," contains a statement concerning the volume of beer purchased in 1983 and an approximation of sales based upon that information.

j. On page 3, in the third paragraph, one sentence, completely masked, contains a statement of the volume of beer purchased in 1984, an estimate of 1984 sales and a comparison of 1984 sales with 1983 sales, calculated on a percentage basis.

Docket #FIC 87-136 Page 3

k. On page 3, in the third paragraph, the sentence beginning "According to Former Chief MacLintic," contains a statement comparing 1984 expenditures with those from 1983.

7. It also is found the statements, more fully described in paragraphs 5a and 5d, above, are not exempt from disclosure under §§12-15(a) and 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

8. It also is found the statements, more fully described in paragraphs 5b, 5c, 5e, 5f, 5g, 5h, 5i, 5j and 5k, above, are exempt from disclosure under §§12-15(a) and 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

9. It further is found the statements, more fully described in paragraphs 5a and 5d, above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S., and are subject to disclosure under §1-19(a), G.S.

10. It therefore is concluded that the respondent failed to comply with paragraph 2 of the Commission's order, as stated, in Docket #FIC 86-345.

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

1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the statements, more fully described in paragraphs 5a and 5d of the findings, above.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 12, 1987.

Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission