FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Thomas A.
DeRiemer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-112
Employees'
Review Board, Personnel Division, State of
Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services,
Respondent January 10, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on September 7, 1989, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission, April 4,
1989, the complainant alleged that the chairman of the respondent board
prevented him from making his own tape recording of his proceeding before the
respondent on March 16, 1989 and that the Post Reporting Service, which made
the official recording, had not responded to his inquiry as to the availability
of the tape and the cost. He requested
that the Commission enjoin the respondent from denying any party from taping a
hearing before it, that the respondent's procedures be modified accordingly,
and that the respondent provide him with, at no cost to him, a copy of the tape
of the March 16, 1989 hearing.
3.
It is found that the complainant appeared as a grievant before the the
respondent on March 16, 1989 and requested permission to make his own tape
recording of the grievance hearing.
4.
It is found that the complainant's request was denied by the respondent
board on the grounds that a personal tape recording might later be confused
with the official tape recording.
5.
The respondent claims that the issue is now moot, since it will
henceforth permit such taping by any party and will provide the complainant, at
no charge, a copy of the hearing.
Docket #FIC
89-112 Page 2
6.
It is concluded that the respondent's offer to provide the complainant
with a copy of the proceeding at no charge does not render the complaint moot
because the refusal to permit the complainant to make his own tape recording in
accordance with 1-21a, G.S., is the issue herein.
7.
It is concluded that by failing to permit the complainant to make a tape
recording of the grievance hearing, the respondent violated 1-21a, G.S.
8.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant additionally requested
that each present and future member of the respondent be provided with a copy
of the Final Decision in this matter, that the respondent be ordered to amend
its regulations to include reference to 1-21a, G.S., that each grievant
before the respondent be provided with a copy of such amended regulations
clearly showing the terms of this order, and that a civil penalty be imposed.
9.
The Commission notes that counsel for the respondent represented at the
hearing that the respondent board met on September 5, 1989, and agreed that
parties appearing before it have the right to request and make their own tape
recordings of the proceedings and that henceforth, the respondent would comply
with the requirements of 1-21a., G.S., and that new members of the
respondent would also be apprised of the requirements of 1-21a, G.S.
10.
Under the circumstances presented in this case, the Commission, in its
discretion, declines to order the additional relief requested by the
complainant.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby reccommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned complaint:
1.
Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements
of 1-21a, G.S., permitting parties appearing before it to make their own
tape recording of the proceedings if it is in accord with the requirements of
the statute.
2.
The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of
the tape recording of the March 16, 1989 hearing, at no charge to the
complainant.
Approved by
order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 10, 1990.
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
89-112 Page 3
PURSUANT TO
SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST
RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF
THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO
THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
THOMAS A.
DERIEMER
SMAC
760 Capitol
Avenue
Hartford, CT
06106
EMPLOYEES'
REVIEW BOARD, PERSONNEL DIVISION, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
c/o Taka
Iwashita, Esquire
Assistant
Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT
06106
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission