The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on 
December 18, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents 
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, 
exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated 
for hearing with contested case docket numbers FIC 90-335 and FIC 
90-326. At the hearing, the complainant's motion for the 
sequestration of witnesses was denied. This case was originally 
docketed under the respondents' heading Senior Personnel Officer, 
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction and Labor Relations 
Hearing Officer, State of Connecticut Labor Department. The caption 
in this case was corrected to reflect the proper respondents.

	After consideration of the entire record, the following 
facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

	1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 
§1-18a(a), G.S.

	2. By letter filed with this Commission on October 24, 1990, 
the complainant alleged that the respondents conducted an improper 
meeting by failing to permit him to tape record a September 26 
meeting.

	3. It is found that the complainant's wife was the subject of a 
Step III grievance conference held on September 26, 1990 pursuant to 
the Connecticut Collective Bargaining Act.

	4. It is found that neither the complainant nor any other 
member of the public or press was denied entry to the September 26 
grievance conference.

	5. It is also found that neither the complainant nor his 
wife or her representative asked or attempted to tape record the 
grievance conference on September 26.

	6. On December 10, 1990, the complainant filed a motion 
for the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

	7. At the hearing, the complainant cited Freedom of 
Information Regulation §1-21j-50 in support of his motion for 
the Commission to investigate the respondent's hearing and 
grievance procedures used in dealing with their employees.

	8. The Commission in its discretion declines to 
investigate the respondents' procedures beyond the evidence 
produced at the hearing.

	9. At the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the 
complaint on the basis that no denial to tape record was made 
within thirty days prior to the filing of this complaint. The 
respondents also claimed that the conference in issue was not a 
meeting of a public agency pursuant to §1-18a(b), G.S.

	10. It is concluded that on September 26, 1990, there was 
no request or attempt to tape record the grievance conference; 
and, accordingly there was no denial of such by the respondents 
at that time.

	11. It is accordingly concluded that the imposition of 
civil penalties is inappropriate under the facts of this case.

	The following order by the Commission is hereby 
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the 
above-captioned complaint.

	1. The respondents' motion to dismiss is granted.

	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at 
its regular meeting of August 14, 1991.

______________________
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission

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:

WILLIAM F. MCDONALD, ESQ.
1052 Enfield Street
Enfield, CT 06082

RICHARD T. BIGGAR, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105

ROBERT A. WHITEHEAD, JR., ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106

______________________
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission