FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Rose Fortuna,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-380
Middletown
Police Department,
Respondent March 28, 1990
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on February 16, 1990, 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. On September 18, 1989 by certified letter the
complainant requested that the respondent answer certain questions and provide
copies of certain records.
3. On October 13, 1989 the complainant mailed her appeal to
the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to provide her with
documents.
4. At hearing the respondent provided the complainant with
a copy of a report on a complaint made on August 4, 1989, by Patrolman
Anderson.
5. It is found that two of the complainant's requests for
records on September 18, 1989 were requests for answers to questions in
writing, rather than requests for copies of records.
6. It is found that nothing in the Freedom of Information
Act requires a public agency to provide answers to questions in writing.
7. It is found that except for the record that was provided
at hearing, the respondent has none of the other records requested by the
complainant.
Docket #FIC
89-380 page
two
8. It is found that on September 28, 1989 the complainant
was informed by the then Sergeant Clayton that the report on her August 4, 1989
complaint was available from the Records Division of the Police Department.
9. It is found that on September 1, 1989, the Sergeant
Clayton informed the complainant that he would be willing to discuss her
complaint with her if she would contact him by phone.
10. It is found that the complainant never discussed the
matter with Sergeant Clayton.
11. It is found that the complainant never attempted to pick
up the report that she had requested.
12. It is found that the complainant has pursued her complaint
in a manner calculated to harass the public agency from which she made her
request for records.
Based upon the record in the
above captioned complaint the following order is hereby recommended.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission urges the complainant to study
52-568, G.S.. If the complainant
continues to file complaints that have the effect of harassing the public
agencies from which she seeks copies of records, the Commission could find that
she has filed her complaints (1)frivolously, (2) without reasonable grounds and
(3) principally for the purpose of harassing the agency against which the
appeal has been taken. Thus if her behaviour continues, the complainant may be
subject to the sanctions set forth at 52-568, G.S.
Approved by
order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March
28, 1990.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC
89-380 page
three
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:
ROSE FORTUNA
19 Cherry Street
Middletown, CT
06457
MIDDLETOWN
POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o Trina A.
Solecki, Esq.
Middletown City
Attorney
245 DeKoven
Drive
P.O. Box 1300
Middletown, CT
06457
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission