The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on 
January 15, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondents 
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, 
exhibits and argument on the complaint. The hearing in this matter 
was consolidated with contested case docket #FIC 90-326.

	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 November 14, 1990, 
the complainant alleged that on November 9, 1990, the respondents 
denied his requests for records dated October 27 and 29, 1990.

	3. At the hearing, availability of the following records 
requested by the complainant on October 27 and 29, 1990 remained at 
issue:

a. those indicating the dollar amount of overtime paid from 
January 1988 through October 27, 1990 by the Department of 
Correction for medical personnel in its Somers and Enfield 
facilities, and the dollar amount of overtime paid to 
Patricia Wollenhaupt during the same 
period;

b. a list of physicians who received on-call payments from the 
Department of Correction from January 1988 through October 27, 
1990; the total amount of such payments each physician received 
and the name and title of the Depart

c. copies of any personal service contracts the 
Department of Correction entered into with Edward A. 
Blanchette, M.D. or any contracts the Department of 
Correction has entered into with any association, 
professional corporation or other business entity in 
which Blanchette is known to have a business or 
professional interest;

d. job descriptions for positions held by Walter Lee 
Palmer, Carol Guy, James McMahon, Edward A. Blanchette, 
Patricia Wollenhaupt, Lori Risley, Tim Silvis and Joanne 
Stowell;

e. copies of all notices sent since January 1, 1985 to 
correctional officers and their superiors forbidding 
entrance into Somers Correctional Institution ("SCI") by 
certain persons, and the names of those certain persons) and

f. the name and title of the person responsible for 
McDonald's immediate suspension, prior to any sort of 
hearing, the reason for such action and the source of 
the authority in said disciplinary manual for such 
action.

	4. It is found that with respect to the complainant's 
request identified in paragraph 3e, above, the Commission has 
examined the issue of disclosure in contested case docket #FIC 
90-326 and accordingly declines to reexamine the issue herein.

	5. At the hearing the respondents claimed that pursuant 
to 31-19b(b), G.S., none of the above-referenced records 
should be ordered disclosed because the complainant is 
attempting to conduct discovery against the respondents.

	6. It is found that at the time of the hearing, there had 
been no discovery motions made or discovery orders entered in 
any related claim.

	7. Accordingly, the respondents' claim identified in 
paragraph 5, above, is hereby rejected.

	8. At the hearing, the respondents also agreed that if 
this case is not dismissed by the Commission, they will 
provide to the complainant any records they have responsive to 
the requests identified in paragraphs 3c and d, above.

	9. With respect to the request identified in paragraph 3a, above,
 it is found that no such record is kept separately from Internal Revenue 
Service Forms W-2. As the Commission has examined the issue of 
disclosure of Form W-2 information in contested case docket #FIC 90-326,
 it accordingly declines to reexamine the issue herein.

	10. With respect to the request identified in paragraph 
3b, above, it is found that no "on-call" list per se exists) 
however, such information may be available on computer.

	11. At the hearing, the respondents claimed that too 
much "research" is involved to attempt to recall any such 
computer information, if in fact it exists on computer.

	12. It is concluded that the provisions of the FOI Act 
require disclosure of records contained on computer.

	13. It is also concluded that to the extent they exist, 
records responsive to the requests identified in paragraphs 
3c, d and f, above, are subject to disclosure pursuant to 
§1-l9(a), G.S.

	14. It is accordingly concluded that the respondents 
violated the provisions of §1-l9(a), G.S. by failing to 
promptly provide the complainant with those records they have 
that are identified in paragraphs 3b, c, d and f, above.

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

	1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the 
complainant with any records in their possession responsive 
to the requests identified in paragraphs 3b, c, d and f of 
the findings, above. To the extent such records do not exist, 
the respondents shall execute an affidavit stating such and 
forward it to the complainant.

	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