FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Edward A. Peruta,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-213
O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager/Public Safety Director, Curtis Roggi, Rocky Hill Town Attorney and Philip Dunn, Acting Chief of Police, Rocky Hill Police Department,
Respondents March 10, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 17, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter filed with this Commission on June 29, 1992, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the FOI Act by denying him access to certain records including a) audio tapes and written transcripts of conversations between John Kulick and a member or members of the Rocky Hill police department; b) the exterior of diaries maintained by the office of the Rocky Hill police chief; c) finished report on charges to be brought against the Rocky Hill police chief; d) a letter of notification delivered to the police chief by O. Paul Shew, and e) statements by Robert Riley and Dorothy Canfield.
3. It is found that in June, 1992, the complainant requested and was denied full access to the records identified in paragraphs 2a) - e), above, by the respondents.
4. It is found that the records identified in paragraphs 2a) - f), above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
5. It is found that prior to the hearing in this matter, the complainant received access to the written transcripts identified in paragraph 2a), above, the report and letter
Docket #FIC 92-213 Page 2
identified in paragraphs 2c) and d), above, and the statement of Robert Riley identified in paragraph 2e), above.
6. With respect to the audio tape identified in paragraph 2a), above, it is found that the voices of confidential informants can be heard thereon.
7. It is concluded that those portions of the above-referenced tape that do not contain voices of confidential informants are not exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the FOI Act.
8. It is found that the diary exterior identified in paragraph 2b), above, is in an office secured by the respondent public safety director. The respondents claim that this item is exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
9. It is found that nine days after the complainant's request, the respondents supplied him with the items identified at paragraphs 2c) and d), above. The respondents claim that they withheld those items until the time of a public hearing into the police chief's dismissal.
10. It is concluded that the fact a public hearing on the police chief's dismissal occurred nine days after the complainant's records request does not excuse the respondents from the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
11. With respect to the documents identified at paragraphs 2c) and d), above, it is concluded that the respondents response to the complainant was not prompt within the meaning of 1-15, G.S., and this accordingly constituted a technical violation of that section.
12. It is also concluded that the respondents failed to establish that the diary exterior identified in paragraph 2b), above, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
13. With respect to Dorothy Canfields's statement, identified at paragraph 2e), above, this document has turned up "missing" after a search for such by the respondents.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. With respect the audio tape identified in paragraph 2a) of the findings, above, the respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant free of charge a copy of such with those portions containing the voices of confidential informants erased.
Docket #FIC 92-213 Page 3
2. With respect to the diary exterior identified in paragraph 2b) of the findings, above, the Commission, in its remedial discretion, declines to order disclosure of such.
3. With respect to the untimely access to the records identified in paragraph 2c) and d) of the findings, above, the respondents shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.
4. With respect to the request for the statement by Dorothy Canfield identified in paragraph 2e) of the findings, above, that portion of the complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 10, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-213 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:
Edward A. Peruta
P.O. Box 307
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager/Public Safety Director, Curtis Roggi, Rocky Hill Town Attorney and Philip Dunn, Acting Chief of Police, Rocky Hill Police Department
c/o Atty. Curtis Roggi
Roggi & Stuhlman
1160 Silas Deane Highway
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission