FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Charlie Williams,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-290
Gary V. Crosson, Director of
Safety/Agency Police, State of Connecticut Department of Public Works,
Respondent January
13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on November 2, 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. By letter
dated September 28, 1987 the complainant, who is employed by the department of
public works as a building and grounds patrol officer, made a request of the
respondent for a copy of charges brought against him by fellow officer Dave
Emerson.
3. By letter
dated October 1, 1987 the respondent stated that he was awaiting approval of
the release of the requested information and would notify the complainant as
soon as a decision was reached.
4. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on October 6, 1987 the complainant
appealed the respondent's failure to provide him with a copy of the requested
records.
5. By letter
dated October 16, 1987 and filed with the Commission on October 22, 1987 the
complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondent.
6. On
October 29, 1987 the complainant received the requested records from the
respondent.
Docket #FIC 87-290 Page
Two
7. It is
found that when the respondent received the complainant's request he asked the
personnel director of the department of public works whether he should release
the records. Because the charges did
not result in any disciplinary action the respondent did not believe he was
required to release them. The personnel
director told him not to release the records until the issue of disclosure had
been researched.
8. On
October 27, 1987 the respondent learned that he was required to release the
records, and was prepared to do so on October 28, 1987. The complainant, who was not at work on that
date, received the records the next day.
9. The
respondent claims that he initially withheld the records based upon his belief
that their release was not required, that the decision on disclosability was in
the hands of persons other than himself and that as soon as a decision was
reached he released the records.
10. It is
found that a delay of approximately one month between the complainant's request
and his receipt of the records denied him the right to prompt access to public
records, in violation of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
11. It is
further found that the respondent cannot avoid responsibility for the delay by
delegating to others the decision on disclosure.
12. The
Commission, however, declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondent.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of
§§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. regarding prompt access to public records.
2. The
Commission notes that future failure to comply with §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
will subject the respondent to the possible imposition of civil penalties of up
to $1,000.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of January 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission