FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Joan Coe,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88‑40
Lenore Davis, Information
Officer, Margaret Shanks, First
Selectman, Gordon Gyngell, Police Chief and Police Department of the Town of
Simsbury,
Respondents November
9, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was scheduled for
hearing March 21, 1988. Prior to
hearing it was continued to May 3, 1988, then to June 20, 1988, and then to
July 25, 1988. At the hearing the
parties appeared and presented evidence and argument on the complaint.
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
of complaint received February 8, 1988 the complainant alleged that the
respondents had violated the Freedom of Information Act by imposing illegal
preconditions upon access to public records, and by altering records maintained
in their files.
3. The
complainant alleged that the respondent police chief imposed illegal
preconditions upon access to records by requiring forms for requests for
records and by requiring decisions concerning requests for access to records to
be made by members of the police department authorized to do so in accordance
with a chain of command.
4. It is
found that the respondent chief no longer requires written forms for FOI
requests but that, for a period of time prior to this complaint, such a
restriction on access did occur.
5. It is
found that a requirement that a request for records be made on a form provided
by the police department is an illegal precondition upon access to records
because it prevents the prompt access required by §§1‑15 and 1‑19(a),
G.S.
Docket #FIC 88‑40 page two
6. It is
found that the respondent chief employed a chain of command to determine which
officer or employee of the police department was authorized to make decisions
on requests for access to public records.
7. It is
found that the use of a chain of command by the respondent chief of police does
not constitute an illegal precondition upon access to public records.
8. It is
found that the complainant had access to the
personnel file of Captain Sevetz on several occasions.
9. It is
found that, on the several occasions when the complainant viewed the personnel
file of Captain Sevetz, different portions of the file had been redacted.
10. It is
found that the discrepancies in the personnel file materials which were shown
to the complainant were not the result of improper alteration of public
records, but rather were the result of the efforts of different individuals to
protect the privacy of Captain Sevetz in accordance with §1‑19(b)(2),
G.S.
11. The
complainant asked that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the named
respondents.
12. Under the
facts of this case, the Commission declines to impose a civil penalty upon the
named respondents.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned
complaint.
1. Henceforth,
the respondent chief and his department shall comply with §§1‑15 and 1‑19(a),
G.S.
2. The complaint
is dismissed as to the respondents Lenore Davis, Information Officer, and
Margaret Shanks, First Selectman, of the Town of Simsbury.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 9, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission