FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Nicholas Karagiannis,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-384
State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police, Troop I,
Respondent April 25, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 20, 1990, at which time the complainant appeared and presented testimony and argument on the complaint, but the respondent failed to appear. At the request of the complainant, this case was continued to give the complainant an opportunity to examine certain employees of the Division of State Police. This case was then heard on April 2, 1990, at which time the respondent appeared, presented the testimony of two employees of the Division of State Police, and presented argument on the complaint, but the complainant failed to appear.
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 dated August 28, 1989 to the respondent, the complainant requested copies of:
a. all documents contained within his personnel file;
b. any complaints filed against him;
c. the complainant's statement presented to M. Sgt. Thomas Moore in the presence of Lt. Robert Welch; and
d. certain evidence presented to M. Sgt. Moore, consisting of an anonymous note, a job description of a State Trooper, and a stack of employment applications.
3. By letter dated September 21, 1989, the complainant repeated his request.
Docket #FIC 89-384 Page 2
4. By letter of complaint dated October 5, 1989 and filed with the Commission on October 16, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his requests had not been answered.
5. It is found that, in January or February of 1990, the respondent offered the complainant access to his personnel file, or a copy of it at a cost of $63.00.
6. The respondent offered no explanation for taking four to five months to respond to the complainant's request, other than the delay caused by the respondent's forwarding of the request from Troop I (where the request was directed) to the State Police Labor Relations Unit for centralized processing.
7. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide to the complainant the requested personnel file promptly upon request.
8. With respect to the complaints described in paragraph 2.b above, it is found that the respondent has no knowledge of and is unable to locate any records responsive to that portion of the complainant's request.
9. With respect to the statement described in paragraph 2.c above, it is found that the respondent has no knowledge of and is unable to locate any records responsive to that portion of the complainant's request.
10. With respect to the evidence described in paragraph 2.d above, it is found that an envelope containing blank job applications was received from the complainant by the then commander of Troop I in September of 1986 and stored in the bottom drawer of a file cabinet, that the envelope was not removed when that commander was transferred to other duties, and that the respondent is unable now to locate the envelope or its contents.
11. The Commission takes administrative notice that the length of time that the evidence described in paragraph 2.d., above, must be retained is governed by records retention schedules approved by the Office of the Public Records Administrator.
12. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion therefore declines to address the issue of the failure of the respondent to keep the evidence described in paragraph 2.d, above, until it was requested three years later.
13. With respect to the note and job description referenced in paragraph 2.d above, it is found that the respondent has no knowledge of and is unable to locate any records responsive to that portion of the complainant's request.
Docket #FIC 89-384 Page 3
14. At the hearing, the complainant amplified his request to include a certain letter dated January 5, 1988 requesting a hearing in connection with his dismissal from the State Police Auxiliary Unit.
15. It is found that the respondent has no knowledge of and is unable to locate any record matching the description in paragraph 13, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., regarding prompt provision of copies of public records.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 25, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-384 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:
NICHOLAS KARAGIANNIS
374 Fountain Street
New Haven, CT 06515
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, TROOP I
c/o Margaret Quilter Chapple, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission