FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Joseph R. Krevis,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                                   Docket #FIC 95-241

 

Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport Mayor, Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport City

Attorney, and H. James Haselkamp, Bridgeport Director of Labor Relations,

 

                                Respondents                        February 28, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 16, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter dated July 5, 1995, the complainant requested that the respondent director of labor relations provide him with a copy of the Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter "I.R.S.") summons served on the City of Bridgeport concerning the complainant's claim(s) for heart and hypertension benefits and pension payments.

 

                3.  By letter dated July 15, 1995, the complainant requested that the respondent director of labor relations provide him with a copy of a summons, if any, authorizing I.R.S. agents to review personnel and medical files at the Bridgeport Police Department on December 21, 1993.

 

                4.  By letter dated July 18, 1995, and filed July 21, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission and alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to respond to his requests, and requested the imposition of maximum civil penalties against the respondents.

 

                5.  It is found that the complainant did not direct his request to the respondent mayor, nor did the respondent mayor become involved in this matter.

 

#FIC 95-241                                           Page 2

 

                6.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the complaint is dismissed with respect to the respondent mayor.

 

                7.  It is found that the complainant is seeking two different summonses:  one dated March 22, 1994, requested in the complainant's July 5, 1995 letter; and a second relative to the I.R.S.'s review of records conducted on December 21, 1993 at police headquarters, requested in the complainant's July 15, 1995 letter.

 

                8.  It is found that the I.R.S. agents reviewing police department personnel and medical files on December 21, 1993, did not have a summons and that no such document exists.

 

                9.  It is found that the requested March 22, 1994 summons is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                10.  It is found that the respondent director of labor relations did not respond to either of the complainant's letters of request until on or about July 24, 1995, when he sent the complainant a letter informing him that his request had been referred to the city attorney's office.

 

                11.  It is found that under cover letter dated August 21, 1995, the respondent city attorney provided the complainant with a copy of the March 22, 1994 summons.

 

                12.  It is found that the March 22, 1994 summons was not provided to the complainant promptly within the meaning of 1-15(a), G.S.

 

                13.  It is concluded that by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of the March 22, 1994 summons, the respondent director of labor relations and the respondent city attorney violated 1-15(a), G.S.

 

                14.  The complainant claims that he received an incomplete copy of the March 22, 1994 summons, but the Commission has insufficient evidence before it to determine whether the summons provided was a complete document.

 

                15.  The Commission, in its discretion, declines to consider the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

 

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

 

#FIC 95-241                                           Page 3

 

                1.  Henceforth, the respondent director of labor relations and the respondent city attorney shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(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 95-241                                             Page 4

 

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:

Joseph R. Krevis

110 Duane Place

Bridgeport, CT 06610

 

Joseph Ganim, Bridgeport Mayor; Mark Anastasi, Bridgeport City Attorney; and H. James Haselkamp, Bridgeport Director of Labor Relations

c/o John Barton, Esq.

Office of City Attorney

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission