FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Gerald W. Sibley,

Complainant Docket #FIC86-20

against

East Windsor Board of Police Commissioners and East Windsor Police Department of the Town of East Windsor,

Respondents March 20, 1986

The above captioned matter was scheduled for hearing on February 14, 1986 at which time the parties appeared and presented evidence and argument on the complaint.

After consideration of the entire record the following facts are found:

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a) G.S.

2. By complaint mailed to the Commission on December 27, 1985, the complainant alleged that the respondents had failed to provide him with certain requested records, promptly, as required by 1-15 and 1-19, G.S.

3. On November 27, 1985, at a meeting of the police commission, the complainant made an oral request for copies of the job requirements for the police positions within the East Windsor police department.

4. On December 6, 1985 the police chief wrote the complainant stating that upon written request and payment of the fee allowed for the requested copies, that they would be mailed to him, or turned over to him in person, if he preferred to come to police headquarters.

5. On or about December 17, 1985, the daughter of the complainant appeared at the police station with a typed request for the documents, signed by the complainant, and addressed to the respondent police commission.

6 She was told that the matter was being handled by the chief, who was not in, and that she would have to return.

7. By letter sent by certified mail to the complainant on December 17, 1985 the chief reiterated substantially the same information as was stated in his December 6 letter to to the complainant.

Docket #FIC86-20 page 2

8. Neither the complainant nor anyone acting on his behalf has picked up the requested records from the police department, nor has the complainant attempted to pay for the records so that they might be mailed to him pursuant to the offers in the letter of the chief dated December 6 and December 17.

9. It is found that the records were not provided to the complainant because he failed to pay for them so that they might be mailed to him, and/or because he failed to come to the police department and pick them up.

10. It is found under these facts that the respondents did not violate the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

11. The respondents asked that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the complainant because his complaint is frivolous.

12. It is found that it is not appropriate to consider a civil penalty in this case.

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 special meeting of March 20, 1986.

ÿ

Catherine Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission