FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Stephen J. Link,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-388
Chairman, Easton Board of Police Commissioners,
Respondent March 28, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 9, 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. By letter of complaint dated October 16, 1989 and filed with the Commission on October 19, 1989, as clarified by letter dated November 13, 1989 and filed with the Commission on November 15, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent had denied his requests for records dated September 22, 1989 and October 5, 1989.
3. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated September 22, 1989, requested of the respondent copies of any complaints regarding the actions, attitude or conduct of the Easton Chief of Police.
4. It is found that the respondent, under cover of a letter dated October 2, 1989, provided copies of six letters, a summons and complaint, and a dispatch tape.
5. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated October 5, 1989, indicated that he believed that the respondent had not fully complied with the complainant's September 22, 1989 request, and repeated that request.
6. It is found that the complainant failed to adduce any persuasive evidence or argument to prove that he had been denied copies of any documents that were responsive to his September 22, 1989 request.
Docket #FIC 89-388 Page 2
7. It is also found that the complainant has taken this appeal to the Commission frivolously and without reasonable grounds within the meaning of 1-21i(b) and 52-568(b), G.S.
The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission advises the complainant that it believes that its procedures and jurisdiction have been at best misunderstood and at worst abused by the complainant's bringing this complaint to a hearing. Speculation, assumption and suspicion are of themselves insufficient to persuade the Commission that unspecified documents have been withheld by an agency in response to a generalized request. The Commission strongly recommends that the complainant study the Commission's "Citizen's Guide to the Freedom of Information Commission," particularly section IV ("Preparing for a Hearing") and section V ("Conduct of a Hearing") as a guide to the process of proving facts. Copies of the "Citizen's Guide" are available from the Commission free of charge.
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 89-388 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:
STEPHEN J. LINK
P.O. Box 317
Easton, CT 06612
CHAIRMAN, EASTON BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS
Michael P. A. Williams, Esq.
Marsh, Day & Calhoun
2507 Post Road
Southport, CT 06490
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission