FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Gayle Penn and AFSCME Local
1303-101,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-16
The Metropolitan District,
Respondent August
10, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on March 3, 1988, at which time the parties appeared and presented evidence and
argument on the complaint. Thereafter,
the matter was continued for April 7, 1988, at which time the parties appeared
and presented additional evidence and argument.
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 December 21, 1987, the complainants requested copies of "any
information written or otherwise, such as correspondence, memos, data drafts,
preliminary or complete reports of the wage and classification study being
prepared by Bugaeff-Cogswell Associates, Inc., or any other firm which is in
possession of the District Manager, any officer, employee, Commissioner,
committee or any function of the Metropolitan District."
3. On
December 23, 1987, copies of some records concerning the study were provided by
the respondent.
4. By letter
of complaint filed with this Commission on January 14, 1988, the complainants
alleged that the respondent had not fully complied with the request for copies
of records which they made on December 21, 1987.
5. It is
found that the respondent provided the complainants with copies of all the
records it had which were within the scope of the complainants request of
December 21, 1987.
6. The
complainants claim that the consultant firm Bugaeff-Cogswell Associates, Inc.
is an agent of the respondent and that any records it has which pertain to the
wage and classification study are public records subject to disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act.
Docket #FIC 88-16 page
two
7. It is
found that Bugaeff-Cogswell Associates, Inc., is not a public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S., and that it does not become a public agency by
virtue of its contract with the respondent to do a wage and classification
study.
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 August 10, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission