FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Anne S. Rozanski,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 91-203
State of Connecticut
Commission on Human Rights and
Opportunities,
Respondent July 8, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on November 7, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. At the
hearing on this matter, the parties stipulated that the all of the exhibits and
testimony in this matter be adopted as exhibits and testimony in Docket #FIC
91-236.
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 July 19, 1991 and filed July 22, 1991, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated
certain portions of the Freedom of Information Act.
3. At
the hearing, the parties stipulated that the only issues remaining for decision
by the Commission concerned the complainant's allegations that the respondent
denied her attorney's telephone request to review certain records and required
him to put his request in writing, that the respondent failed to provide copies
of non-evidentiary records, and that the respondent held a meeting of its
Enforcement Committee that was not in compliance with 1-21, G.S.
4. It
is found that the complainant's attorney's law office contacted the
respondent's Hartford office on June 18, 1991 and asked to review the
respondent's case file concerning a discrimination case filed by the
complainant.
5. It
is found that the respondent indicated a preference for a written request, and
indicated that the records could not be produced for inspection on the
following day because they would first have to be reviewed by the respondent's
counsel.
Docket #FIC 91-203 Page
2
6. It
is found that the complainant's complaint was postmarked not earlier than July
19, 1991.
7. It
is concluded therefore that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to consider that
portion of the complainant's allegations concerning the June 18, 1991 denial of
the request to inspect records, pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.
8. With
respect to that portion of the complaint concerning non-evidentiary records, it
is found that the respondent by letter dated July 1, 1991 denied the
complainant's attorney's request for those portions of the complainant's case
file that consisted of non-evidentiary matters, such as agency work product.
9. It
is found that the only documents in the complainant's CHRO case file at issue
are (a) an investigator's memorandum discussing the complainant's May 6, 1991
response to the respondent's April 24, 1991 preliminary draft finding of lack
of sufficient evidence to support the initial discrimination complaint; (b) a
checklist indicating the steps taken by the parties to the CHRO complaint and
by CHRO; (c) an investigative plan, which briefly describes such issues as the
type of complaint, type of allegation, protected class, theory of
discrimination, defenses and rebuttals, disputed issues, and disposition of the
complaint; and (d) a memorandum relating an investigator's review of the case
with the complainant's attorney.
10. It
is concluded that the documents described in paragraph 9, above, are public
records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
11. The
respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 46a-83(b), G.S.
12. Section
46a-83(b), as in effect at all times applicable to complainant's CHRO
complaint, provides:
No commissioner or investigator may disclose, except
to the parties or their representatives, what has occurred in the course of
such endeavors provided the commission may publish the facts in the case and
any complaint which has been dismissed and the terms of conciliation when a
complaint has been adjusted. Each party
and his representative shall have the right to inspect and copy documents,
statements of witnesses and other evidence pertaining to his complaint, except
as otherwise provided by federal law or any other provision of the general
statutes.
13. It
is found that the documents described in paragraph 9, above, are not statements
of witnessess or other evidence pertaining to the complainant's CHRO complaint.
Docket #FIC 91-203 Page
3
14. It
is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate 1-15 or
1-19(a), G.S., by refusing to disclose the documents described in paragraph 9,
above.
15. With
respect to the complainant's allegations concerning a meeting of the
respondent's Enforcement Committee concerning the complainant's CHRO complaint,
it is found that the Enforcement Committee did not meet concerning the
complainant's CHRO complaint.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 8, 1992.
Karen J.Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 91-203 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:
Barry J. Boodman, Esq.
810 Bedford Avenue
Stamford, CT 06901
Philip A. Murphy, Jr., Esq.
CHRO
90 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Karen J.Haggett
Clerk of the Commission