FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

James M. Moore,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-196

 

Paul Gionfriddo, Mayor of the City of Middletown,

 

                        Respondent(s)              November 14, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 17, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 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 May 24, 1990, and filed with this Commission on May 29, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to respond to his request for documents relating to his termination as Personnel Director for the City of Middletown.

 

            3.  In a letter dated May 14, 1990 and served upon the respondent by sheriff that same day, the complainant sought the following information:

 

            (a)  "the specific facts" which the respondent relied upon to make and support his decision to terminate the employment of Mr. Moore; and

 

            (b)  copies of all public documents relied upon by the respondent to support the discharge of Mr. Moore.

 

            4.  The complainant requests the imposition of a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

            5.  It is found that all of the information and documentation requested by the complainant in paragraph 3 of the findings, above, was provided to the complainant's counsel on May 30, 1990.

 

Docket #FIC 90-196                                      Page 2

 

            6.  The respondent concedes that the documents provided to the complainant's attorney are public records, as defined by 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            7.  However, the respondent contends that the records were not provided to the complainant prior to the May 30, 1990 Middletown Common Council hearing regarding the discharge of the complainant from his employment with the City of Middletown because:

 

            (a)  the respondent believed that the complainant was using 1-15, G.S., for purposes of discovery, in violation of 1-19b(b), G.S.; and

 

            (b)  all of the documents were part of the respondent's strategy in the matter of the complainant's decision to appeal the respondent's termination of his employment and therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.; and

 

            (c)  the documents were communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship regarding the complainant's discharge and therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

 

            8.  It is found that the information which the complainant sought from the respondent as set forth in paragraph 3(a) of the findings, above, does not constitute a request for public documents, but requires the respondent to answer questions.

 

            9.  It is found that 1-15, G.S. does not require a public agency to do research or answer questions.

 

            10.  It is concluded that, as to the information described in paragraph 3(a) of the findings, above, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply.

 

            11.  It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the Common Council hearing on May 30, 1990 was a "pending claim or litigation" within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

 

            12.  It is also found that neither the complainant nor the respondent is a "litigant" within the meaning of 1-19b(b)(1), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 90-196                                     Page 3

 

            13.  It is further found that respondent failed to prove that the documents described in paragraph 3(b) of the findings, above, contained communications privileged by an attorney-client relationship, within the meaning of 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

 

            14.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-15, G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with copies of the requested documents, as set forth in paragraph 3(b) of the findings, above.

 

            15.  As a matter of discretion, the Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the complainant.

 

            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 with respect to the information requested in paragraph 3(a) of the findings, above.

 

            2.  Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the time provisions for complying with requests for copies of public records as set forth in 1-15, G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 14, 1990.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-196                                     Page 4

 

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:

JAMES M. MOORE

c/o Edward W. Mayer, Jr., Esq.

Gager & Henry

One Exchange Place

P.O. Box 2480

Waterbury, CT 06722

 

PAUL GIONFRIDDO, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MIDDLETOWN

c/o Trina A. Solecki, Esq.

City Attorney's Office

245 DeKoven Drive

P.O. Box 1300

Middletown, CT 06457

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission