FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Robert
Dandeneau,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-5
Department of
Police Service of the City of Waterbury,
Respondent August 27, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 15, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
matter, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. In
November, 1985, the complainant, a police officer in the respondent department,
submitted for reimbursement receipts totaling $16.94 for three meals at the
White Colony Diner. The complainant
subsequently became aware that the acting superintendent of the respondent had
taken action to verify that the complainant had eaten there.
3. By
letter dated December 30, 1985 the complainant made a request of the acting
superintendent of the respondent for the opportunity to inspect and copy
"all materials involved in any investigations conducted by the Waterbury
Police Department" involving him.
4. By
letter dated December 31, 1985 the respondent replied that the information
requested was not available "as dictated by Section 1-49 (B) 3 [sic] of
The Freedom of Information Act regarding internal investigations."
5. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on January 8, 1986 the
complainant appealed the denial of his request.
Docket #FIC 86-5 Page Two
6. At
hearing the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
Commission failed to comply with the time limits of 1-21i(b), G.S. This case, however, has been validated
pursuant to P.A. 86-408 so that the failure of the Commission to comply with
the time limits set forth at 1-21i(b), G.S. does not deprive the
Commission of jurisdiction. The
respondent's motion, therefore, is denied.
7. It
is found that the investigation conducted by the respondent department
consisted of sending two detectives to the White Colony Diner to determine
whether the bills submitted by the complainant were generated by that
establishment. The two detectives also
interviewed an employee of the diner, at her home, and verified that the bills
submitted by the complainant were legitimate.
The two detectives made an oral report of their findings to the acting
superintendent.
8. The
respondent claims that no records of the "diner" investigation were
created by either the acting superintendent or the two detectives. The respondent department conducted a
computer search for records under the names of the complainant and of the two
detectives and was unable to locate any records of an investigation.
9. It
is concluded that no records of the investigation of the complainant's claim
for reimbursement exist and that the complainant was not denied access to
public records within the meaning of 1-21i(a), G.S.
10. It
is noted, however, that the acting superintendent's December 31, 1985 response
was inaccurate and misleading and that the complainant's appeal to this
Commission might have been avoided had the acting superintendent responded in a
meaningful way to the complainant's inquiry.
The Commission also notes that incurring the inconvenience and expense
of requiring the presence of the acting superintendent, two detectives and
their counsel at a hearing before this Commission is a profligate waste of
resources in an agency which, apparently, assiduously monitors its other
expenses.
The following order by the
Commission is 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 August 27, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission