FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Roy Wood, Frank J. Keegan
and Bristol Press,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 88‑161
Office of the Corporation
Counsel and Mayor of the City of Bristol,
Respondents September
14, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case, on June 14, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondents
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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1‑18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated April 7, 1988, the complainants requested the respondents provide them
with a copy of their response to allegations made by Jerome Davis in his
complaint to the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in its case
number 8830241.
3. By letter
dated April 14, 1988, the respondents' legal counsel denied the request.
4. By letter
dated April 20, 1988, and filed with the Commission on April 22, 1988, the
complainants appealed to the Commission.
5. At the
hearing, the parties stipulated to entering all testimony from Docket #FIC 88‑151,
Roy Wood, Frank J. Keegan and Bristol Press against West Central District
Manager, State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and
State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, into the
record of this case.
6. The
respondents claim that the requested record is exempt from disclosure under §1‑19(b)(4),
G.S.
Docket #88‑161 Page
Three
7. It is found
that the requested record pertains to the respondents' strategy with respect to
the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities' case number 8830241.
8. It is found
that case number 8830241 was a claim pending before the Commission on Human
Rights and Opportunities at the time the complainants requested the record.
9. It is
concluded, therefore, that the requested record is exempt under §1‑19(b)(4),
G.S.
10. Thus it is
concluded that the respondents did not violate §§1‑15 or 1‑19(a),
G.S., when they withheld the requested record.
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 without prejudice.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of September 14, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission