FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Martin Lynch,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 96-67
Gerald Gore, Legislative and
Administrative Assistant Advisor,
Legal Affairs Unit, State of
Connecticut, Department of Public
Safety, Division of State
Police, and Labor Relations Unit, State of
Connecticut, Department of
Public Safety, Division of State Police,
Respondents July 10, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on April 18, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents
appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case-caption has been changed to more
correctly identify the respondents in this matter.
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 of complaint dated February 23, 1996, and filed with this Commission on
February 26, 1996, the complainant alleged non-compliance ("non-compliance
complaint") with the Commission's final decision in Docket #FIC 95-33,
Martin Lynch v. Labor Relations Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of
Public Safety, Division of State Police ("FIC 95-33").
3. The
Commission takes administrative notice of the record, decisions and case file
in FIC 95-33.
4. It
is found that with cover letter dated February 27, 1996, the respondents
provided the complainant with the department's evidence procedure and training
information records as directed in paragraph 2 of the order in FIC 95-33--four
days after the complainant filed his non-compliance complaint.
Docket #FIC 96-67 Page
2
5. With
respect to the trooper identification and calibration records ordered disclosed
in paragraphs 3 through 5 of the order in FIC 95-33, the respondents claim that
the portion of the speeding citation containing the trooper identification
information, which is necessary in order to provide the radar device and
calibration information, is not retained in their files.
6. Specifically,
the respondents argue that only the front page of the speeding citation is
retained in its files, while the front and back portions of the citation
containing the identification and calibration information are sent to, and
retained by the state's attorney's office.
7. Additionally,
counsel for the respondents maintained that the respondents had no obligation
to obtain the identification information from the state's attorney's office so
that it could provide the calibration information, in order to comply with the
Commission's order in FIC 95-33.
8. It
is found that the respondents knew at the time of the first hearing on this
matter that in order to provide the complainant with the radar device and
calibration information it had to first obtain the trooper identification
information from either the state's attorney's office, or the complainant if he
still had his copy of the speeding citation.
9. It
is found that the respondents failed to make the Commission aware of the facts
set forth in paragraph 8 of the findings, above, and wilfully failed to ask
either the state's attorney's office or the complainant for the relevant
trooper identification information.
10. Given
the facts in this case, it is found that the respondents have been ill-advised
by counsel concerning their obligation to request from the state's attorney's
office the information necessary to comply with the Commission's order in FIC
95-33.
11. It
is found that the respondents have failed and refused to provide the
complainant with the pertinent trooper identification and calibration records
as ordered in FIC 95-33.
12. It
is found that the respondents' failure to fully comply with the complainant's
records request and this Commission's order in a timely manner are without
reasonable grounds.
Docket #FIC 96-67 Page
3
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents shall fully comply with the Commission's order in FIC 95-33 by
providing the complainant with the record identifying the troopers who issued
the citation and manned the radar device, and the calibration information for
that radar device within seven days of the date of mailing the notice of final
decision in this case. Failure to do so
shall result in the referral of this matter to the appropriate state's attorney
for criminal prosecution under 1-21k(b), G.S.
2. Respondent
Gore shall remit to this Commission, within thirty days of the date of notice
of final decision in this case, a civil penalty pursuant to paragraph 6 of the
order in FIC 95-33, in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00).
3. Finally,
the Commission admonishes the respondents for their utter lack of
accountability, care, concern and diligence in complying with the Freedom of
Information Act and the Commission's order in FIC 95-33. The respondents' actions in this case
exemplify poor government. By failing
to take seriously the Commission's order in FIC 95-33, the respondents have
continued to unnecessarily burden this Commission, and deprive other citizens
of their opportunity to be heard.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 10, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 96-67 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:
Martin Lynch
80 Spicer Hill Road
Ledyard, CT 06339
Gerald Gore, Legislative and
Administrative Assistant Advisor, Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut,
Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, and Labor Relations
Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State
Police
c/o Sharon M. Hartley, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission