FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
John DePino,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 87-305
Commissioner, State of
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection,
Respondent February 10, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on December 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 October 2, 1987, the complainant requested the respondent provide him
with all the records in the respondent's file about the controversy underlying DePino
v. Ungers, which originated in Superior Court in 1985. The complainant included in his request
documents dated January 10, 1984, October 10, 1984, August 2, 1985, August 3,
1985, August 13, 1985, September 11, 1985, October 8, 1985, December 28, 1985,
January 8, 1986, and August 12, 1987, and anything else important to the
matter.
3. The
complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated October 13, 1987, and
filed with the Commission on October 15, 1987.
4. The respondent
claims her staff has searched its files and given the complainant all the
records it has. The respondent also
claims her staff will search again, and, if it discovers any other records,
give them to the complainant, and, if it discovers none, sign affidavits saying
so. The respondent also requests a
civil penalty be imposed on the complainant for harassment.
5. At the hearing
the complainant limited his request to the following records:
Docket #FIC 87-305 Page
Two
a. documentation of an investigation of the
Stern Co. that allegedly led the respondent's assistant to mention in a
telephone conversation an exact amount of irregular tiles Stern Co. allegedly
sold, and
b. five black and white photographs the
complainant claims he sent to the respondent in a letter dated October 2, 1987.
6. It is found
that the respondent has provided the complainant with the full investigation
report concerning this matter, that no other investigation such as that described
in paragraph 5a above took place, and that no investigation records exist other
than those already provided to the complainant.
7. It is found that the complainant cannot conclusively
prove he sent the photographs to the respondent, but nonetheless the respondent
has agreed to have her staff diligently search for the records described in
paragraph 5b above and, if they find them, give them to the complainant.
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.
2. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the respondent.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of February 10, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission