FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Bruce Zawodniak,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 87-309

Contract Compliance Director, City of New Haven Commission on Equal Opportunities and City of New Haven Commission on Equal Opportunities,

Respondents February 10, 1988

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 1, 1987, at which time the complainant appeared and offered testimony and exhibits but the respondents failed to appear.

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 letter dated August 7, 1987 the complainant made a request of the respondent director for access to certified weekly payroll reports filed by Hydro-Dredge on the Lighthouse Park Fishing Pier Project in New Haven for the period from June 1, 1987 to the present.

3. By letter dated August 20, 1987 the complainant made a request of the respondent director for access to all certified weekly payroll reports filed by Anderson-Wilcox, Leone Construction, Clark Sewer and Frank Tuthill on, respectively, the Forbes Commons Condominiums, the Ferry Street Bridge Repair, the Long Wharf Storm Sewer and the Booster Pump Station Addition - Raynham Hill.

4. By letter dated August 20, 1987 the complainant made a request of the respondent director for tabulations of the percentage of workers that were women and minorities and the percentage of hours worked by women and minorities on the Forbes Commons Condominiums (Anderson-Wilcox), the Grando Drive Site (B & D Contractors) and the Front Street Site (D.V. Morin).

5. By three letters dated September 10, 1987 the complainant inquired as to the status of his requests for records referred to at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, above.

Docket #FIC 87-309 Page Two

6. By letter dated September 16, 1987 the respondent director offered the complainant the opportunity to review, under supervision, whatever files were available on the projects in question. The respondent director asked the complainant to send him, by mail, dates on which he wished to review the files, and to allow time for the respondent director to respond by mail.

7. By letter dated September 22, 1987 the complainant stated that he was available to review the files in question on October 6, 7, 8, 12, 14 or 15, and asked that the respondent director let him know what date and time would be convenient.

8. The respondent director did not respond to the complainant's September 22, 1987 letter.

9. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on October 21, 1987 the complainant appealed the respondent director's failure to provide access to the requested records.

10. It is found that records maintained by the respondents concerning the projects in question are public records or files within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

11. It is found that the respondent director's failure to respond to the complainant's September 22, 1987 letter constituted a denial of the complainant's request for records.

12. The respondents, who did not appear at hearing, failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to any provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other state statute or federal law.

13. It is concluded that the respondent director's denial of the complainant's requests for access to records violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

1. The respondent director shall, within one week of the Notice of Final Decision in this matter, provide the complainant with access to inspect and copy the records referred to at paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the findings, above.

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