FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Richard R. Olson

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 87-22

Thames Valley Presidential Search Committee of the Board of Trustees for State Technical Colleges

Respondent April 22, 1987

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 5, 1987, 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:

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. On January 23, 1987, the complainant applied to the Commission for a determination, pursuant to 1-21k(a), whether videotapes which the Commission had ordered be disclosed in #FIC 86-282 had been willfully and knowingly destroyed or disposed of.

3. The Commission issued the following order in #FIC 86-282:

The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of all videotaped interviews of Dr. John K. Fisher and Dr. Eileen Baccus, candidates for president of Thames Valley State Technical College within 30 days of the date of mailing of the Final Decision in this case.

4. On December 31, 1986, after the order in Docket #FIC 86-282 had become final, the executive director of the board of trustees for state technical colleges informed the complainant that the tapes which were subject to the Commission order had been lost or destroyed some time subsequent to July 30, 1986.

Docket # FIC 87-22 page two

5. It is found that on October 27, 1986, the day the hearing in #FIC 86-282 was held, employees of the board of trustees knew that the videotapes may have been lost, that they were not stored in the place where they should have been stored and a search was ongoing for the videotaped interviews.

6. It is found that the respondent failed to inform the Commission at the time of the hearing or at the time of the final decision in #FIC 86-282, that the videotapes had not been located.

7. It is further found that 1-21k, G.S., is a criminal statute, the investigation and prosecution for which are within the jurisdiction of the criminal justice division of the judicial department pursuant to 51-276, G.S.

8. It is concluded, therefore, that the Commission lacks, and declines to exercise, jurisdiction over the complainant's request as stated in paragraph 5.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 22, 1987.

ÿ

Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission