FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Cynthia A. Kleist,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 91-87

State of Connecticut, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,

Respondent February 26, 1992

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 14, 1991, 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. On March 22, 1991, the complainant orally requested from the respondent, the opportunity to inspect the written summary of the findings in a case identified as Kleist v. Bridgeport Post, CHRO No. 9120048 (hereinafter "case"); and simultaneously the complainant submitted a written request for a copy of the written record containing the findings in the case.

3. By letter to the respondent dated March 26, 1991, the complainant requested a copy of the complete file for the case.

4. By letter dated April 3, 1991 and filed April 4, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent denied access to the requested case file.

5. It is found that in total, the complainant was seeking the entire case file and any documents relating to her case.

Docket #FIC 91-87 Page 2

6. It is found that the respondent provided copies of the requested case file on April 19, 1991, absent what the respondent deemed to be "agency analysis." The complainant signed for the disclosed contents of the case file and acknowledged its receipt on April 22, 1991.

7. At hearing the respondent provided the complainant with three additional documents that it maintains were not provided to the complainant at the time the case file was originally transmitted to the complainant due to a clerical oversight.

8. The respondents maintain that the delay in providing the complainant with the disclosable portions of the case file was due to staff shortages and the fact that the file had to be reviewed to make a determination of what was disclosable to the complainant.

9. At hearing the complainant maintained that minutes from the respondent's March 8, 1991 special meeting and April 4, 1991 regular meeting should also have been provided to her in response to her document request.

10. At the request of the hearing officer the respondent filed with the Commission and provided the complainant with copies of the minutes of the meetings described in paragraph 9, above.

11. It is found that the complainant's case was not considered at either of the meetings described in paragraph 9, above, and therefore the minutes of the meetings were not within the purview of the complainant's document request.

12. The respondent maintains that the complainant has been provided with copies of all of the requested documents to which she is entitled, and that the remaining documents may be withheld from disclosure to the complainant pursuant to 1-19(a) and 46a-83(e), G.S.

13. Section 1-19(a), G.S., states in relevant part:

"Except as otherwise provided by any federal law

or state statute, all records maintained or kept

on file by any public agency ... shall be public

records and every person shall have the right to

... receive a copy of such records in accordance

with the provisions of section 1-15." [Emphasis

added.]

Docket #FIC 91-87 Page 3

14. It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

15. However, 46a-83(e), G.S., states in relevant part:

No [CHRO] commissioner or investigator may disclose,

except to the parties or their representatives, what

has occurred in the course of such endeavors...Each

party and his representative shall have the right

to inspect and copy documents, statements of

witnesses and other evidence pertaining to the

complaint...[Emphasis added.]

16. It is therefore concluded that disclosure of the subject records is governed by the provisions of 46a-83(e), G.S., in accordance with the "otherwise provides" language of 1-19(a), G.S.

17. It is found that the complainant is a "party" to a complaint investigated by the respondent, within the meaning of of 46a-83(e), G.S.

18. The respondent maintains that the only documents which have not been provided to the complainant are "agency analysis" documents which are not "evidence" within the meaning of 46a-83(e), G.S.

19. At the request of the Commission, the respondent submitted for in camera inspection, the remaining undisclosed documents.

20. It is found that there are a total of three documents which have not been disclosed to the complainant:

a. a six-page investigative plan that is a form

checklist, checked off by the CHRO investigator

assigned to the complainant's case at the commencement

of the CHRO investigation; the checklist covers

such topics as the type of allegation, legal issues,

respondent's defense and complainant's major rebuttal,

list of potential witnesses, preliminary impressions

and a checklist on the disposition of the case; and

b. a one-page memorandum to the file dated February

19, 1991 that was prepared by the CHRO investigator

summarizing the complainant's response to the

respondent's "14 day letter"; and

Docket #FIC 91-87 Page 4

c. a two-page form checklist analysis of the CHRO

case summary and case file that appears to have been

checked off by the CHRO investigator and the CHRO

supervisor at the conclusion of the respondent's

investigation of the complainant's case.

21. It is found that the three documents described in paragraph 20, above, do not constitute "evidence" within the meaning of 46a-83(e), G.S.

22. It is therefore concluded that the three documents are not subject to the mandatory disclosure provisions of 46a-83(e), G.S.

23. It is found that the three documents described in paragraph 20, above, are records of what occurred in the course of the respondent's endeavors to investigate and conciliate the complainant's CHRO complaint, within the meaning of 46a-83(e), G.S.

24. It is concluded that 46a-83(e), G.S., does not require the respondent to disclose the documents described in paragraph 20, above, to the parties to the CHRO complaint.

25. It is therefore concluded that the three documents described in paragraph 20, above, may be withheld from disclosure to the complainant pursuant to 1-19(a) and 46a-83(e), G.S.

26. It is further concluded however, that with respect to the case file documents transmitted to the complainant on April 19 and June 14, 1991, the respondents violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide prompt access to public documents.

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

1. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 1992.

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 91-87 Page 5

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:

Cynthia A. Kleist

251 Lancaster Way

Cheshire, CT 06410

State of Connecticut,

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities

c/o Attorney Philip A. Murphy, Jr. and Raymind P. Pech

CHRO Commission Counsel

90 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission