FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Michael C. Stumo,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-232
Joseph Croughwell, Chief of
Police, Hartford Police Department,
Respondent February 28, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 9, 1996, 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 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated June 28, 1995, the complainant requested that the Hartford Police
Department provide him with:
a.
Any and all documents pertaining to the 1994
lieutenants examination conducted by
the Hartford Police Department, including, but not limited to:
i. instructional material and criteria used by
the grading panel to evaluate the candidates participating in the examination;
ii. the names, addresses and titles of all
persons involved with conducting the examination;
iii. all questions, written and oral, which were
presented to each candidate;
iv. all notes and comments pertaining to the
examination made by each person involved with conducting the examination;
#FIC 95-232 Page
2
v. all documents relating to any meeting which
was held regarding the examination.
b.
With respect to Richard Kemmet, Ezequeiel Laureano, Donald Rodrique,
Joseph Croughwell, Robert Casati, Antonio Cancel, Timothy Hogan, Timothy
Palmer, James Blanchette, Michael A. Manzi, Katherine A. Perez, William P.
Reilly, Michael J. Fallon, Robert E. Carlson, Robert S. Rudewicz, Stephen
Heslin, Marc P. Rubera, Richard M. Borofsky, and Carl Henderson, any and all
documents relating to:
i. disciplinary
actions;
ii. internal affairs
investigations;
iii. the dates and
general subject matter of all internal affairs investigations which have been
completed and resulted in a finding of wrongdoing;
iv. the dates and
general subject matter of all internal affairs investigations which have been
completed and did not result in a finding of wrongdoing; and
v. the dates and
general subject matter of all internal affairs investigations which have not
been completed.
c.
Any and all documents relating to the tests taken in 1994 and 1995 by
Timothy Hogan for the purpose of evaluation for promotion.
3. By letter
dated July 6, 1995, the respondent informed the complainant that he could not
provide him with any documents because:
a) he did not have custody of the information as requested in paragraphs
2a(i) and 2a(iii), above; and b) the remainder of the documents requested were
exempt under 1-19(b)(4), G.S., and because the Freedom of Information
("FOI") Act does not require disclosure of records which can be
obtained through discovery.
4. By letter
dated July 13, 1995, and filed July 14, 1995, the complainant appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information
("FOI") Act by denying his request.
In addition, the complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties
against the respondent.
#FIC 95-232 Page
3
5. It is
found that any documents in existence, which are responsive to the
complainant's request, are public records within the meaning of
1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
6. At the
hearing on this matter, the respondent withdrew his claim concerning
1-19(b)(4), G.S., but maintained that the requested records were exempt
from disclosure pursuant to 1-19b(b)(1), G.S.
7. It is
found that the complainant is an attorney who represents an individual who
filed a civil complaint against the Hartford Police Department and the
respondent individually, alleging, among other claims, racial discrimination in
the department's promotion practices.
8. It is
found that in the litigation described in paragraph 7, above, the complainant
filed discovery requests seeking the same records at issue in this matter, and
that the respondent objected to the discovery requests.
9. Prior to
its amendment in 1994, 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., provided that:
"Nothing in [the FOI Act] shall be deemed in any
manner to ... affect the rights of litigants, including parties to
administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this
state." (Emphasis added.)
10. Section
1-19b(b)(1), G.S., now provides that:
"Nothing in [the FOI Act] shall be deemed in any
manner to ... limit the rights of litigants, including parties to
administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this
state." (Emphasis added.)
11.
Consequently, 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., does not provide a bar to
disclosure of public records in this case.
12. It is
concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S., by
denying the complainant access to the requested records identified in paragraph
2a-c, above, which are in his possession.
13. The
Commission has insufficient evidence to determine whether the records
identified in paragraphs 2a(i) and 2a(iii), above, are maintained by the
respondent.
#FIC 95-232 Page
4
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondent shall immediately search his files to determine whether he in fact
maintains the records described in paragraphs 2a(i) and 2a(iii) of the
findings, above.
2. If the
records described in paragraphs 2a(i) and 2a(iii) of the findings, above, are
maintained by the respondent, he shall immediately provide the complainant with
access to inspect, or copies of, such records.
3. If the
records described in paragraphs 2a(i) and 2a(iii) of the findings, above, are
not maintained by the respondent, the respondent shall immediately execute an
affidavit detailing the nature and extent of his search and stating that he
does not maintain such records, which affidavit shall immediately be provided
to the complainant upon completion.
4. The
respondent shall immediately provide the complainant with access to inspect, or
copies of, the remainder of the records identified in paragraphs 2a-c of the
findings, above.
5. The
respondent shall fulfill the terms of this order, as described in paragraphs 1
through 4, above, no later than one week from the date of receipt of the
Commission's final decision in this matter.
6.
Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements
of 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 28, 1996.
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 95-232 Page
5
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:
Michael C. Stumo, Esq.
Brignole and Terk, LLC
73 Wadsworth Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Joseph Croughwell, Chief of
Police, Hartford Police Department
c/o Helen Apostolidis, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission