FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Report of Hearing Officer

Fred Radford,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 91-255

Trumbull First Selectman and Town of Trumbull,

Respondents, April 8, 1992

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 23, 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. By complaint filed August 20, 1991 the complainant alleged that on August 7, 1991 he was denied his rights under the Freedom of Information Act because the respondents denied him copies of the following records that concern the last two police contracts.

3. It is found that on August 2, 1991 the complainant requested copies of:

(a) the original requests made by the police union to the

town of Trumbull;

(b) the original offers made by the Town of Trumbull to the police union;

(c) the last and final union requests;

(d) the last and final offers made by the Town of Trumbull;

(e) the lists of unresolved items from which the Arbitrators select either the final union requests or the final town offers;

(f) the final binding award; and

(g) the total cost of the negotiators' services.

#FIC 91-246 Page Two

4. It is found that the respondents did deny the complainant's requests for records on August 7, 1991.

5. It is found that items (a) and (b) are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(9), G.S., as strategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.

6. It is found that items (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) to not exist.

7. It is found that item (g) does not exist in the form requested, because personnel services are provided to the town by contract on a per annum basis. However, the complainant can determine the annual cost of personnel services because the cost of the contract is shown as a line item in the town budget.

8. The respondents explained at hearing that the changes in the terms of the union contracts are in the contracts themselves and are publicly available.

9. The complainant claims that the contracts are not readily available because too few copies have been printed.

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.

2. Although the issue of the availability of copies of the contract is outside the scope of the complaint, the respondent would serve the public if more copies of the contract with the police union were made available.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 8, 1992.

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission

#FIC 91-246 Page Three

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:

Fred Radford

135 Pinewood Trail

Trumbull, CT 06611

Trumbull First Selectman and Town of Trumbull

c/o Attorney Michael P. Devlin

Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C.

75 Broad Street

Milford, CT 06460

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission